Before reporting progress, I adverted to the part the Department of Social Welfare is likely to play in the implementation of this Bill. The Labour Party are on record on many occasions as being outrightly opposed to the Department of Social Welfare having any hand act or part in the administration of this measure.
Committee on Finance. - Redundancy Payments Bill, 1967: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"‘the Board' means the Redundancy Appeals Board established under section —".—(Deputy Jones).
Is this in relation to the amendments before the House, which deal solely with the setting-up of boards or tribunals?
Indeed it is, Sir. I believe this new section has been introduced by the Minister as a result of objections made in particular from this side of the House in respect of the administration of this measure being handed over to deciding officers of the Department of Social Welfare. We are very pleased the Minister has had second thoughts and has introduced this new section which is a clear departure from the point of view expressed by the Minister in this House on the 30th May last. As reported at column 1614 of the Official Report, Volume 228, No. 13, the Minister said:
If a worker is dissatisfied with an employer's decision regarding a lump sum payment, he may ask to have the question resolved by the appeals machinery of the Department of Social Welfare. A worker may also avail of the same appeals machinery if he is dissatisfied with a decision of a deciding officer. Likewise, an employer may appeal against the decision of a deciding officer on matters relating to scope and contributions. Reference to the High Court may be made where a question of law is involved.
I could go on indicating clearly that the administration of this redundancy pay was in very large measure tied up with the Department of Social Welfare. We were perturbed about this divided responsibility between these two Departments. We wanted the Minister for Labour to be in sole control of this matter. We were particularly concerned about the Department of Social Welfare deciding matters of this kind by reason of the tradition and the background of the administrators of that Department.
In our opinion, the appeals officers of the Department of Social Welfare are unfit by training, background and outlook to administer this scheme and no good could come from it. They are actuated by a niggardly, conservative, out-moded and archaic social welfare code, by niggardly means tests and the conception of the dole. All that is completely removed from our ideas on the dignity of labour.
We have this new concept whereby workers would be entitled to reasonable recompense when they become disemployed due to redundancy until such time as they are trained and replaced in suitable employment. On the other hand, we have this code, riddled with the conception of means tests, doles, and so on, and the people who administer it are totally unsuited to administer this new scheme. One has only to look at the code of social welfare in respect of unemployment benefit to realise that these people would still be looking with a jaundiced eye at this matter. Their whole approach to the administration of social welfare, as we have known it in respect of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance, in particular, was such as to deprive the applicant of benefit rather than to help him to secure it. All kinds of tricks and devices are included in that code to trick the applicant out of his benefit. I want the Minister to state categorically that the Department of Social Welfare and its administrators are now completely and utterly divorced from the administration of the Bill we are now discussing.
In section 39 there is still reference to deciding officers. What kind of person will a deciding officer be? Will he be appointed by the Minister for Labour or will he be a person in the Department of Social Welfare? If the deciding officer or the appeals officer has the mentality of a type which we have had to contend with at appeal boards in respect, for example, of unemployment benefit, then this scheme will be maladministered and social justice cannot be done. They will still be prejudiced by the code they are at present administering in respect of a person who loses his employment by reason of alleged misconduct, as a result of a trade dispute, a strike or lockout or by reason of refusing employment. A very important factor under this Bill is the question of an offer of alternative employment, that is, whether the wishes of the employee will be met, whether the employment offered is suitable, of a kind to which the person was used and in keeping with that person's training and talents.
Where any employment is offered, however menial, irrespective of the rotten conditions or the low wages prevailing for the job, the person is automatically disqualified from unemployment benefit if he or she does not take up the job. This invariably happens. We do not want that kind of mentality directed towards workers who become redundant. We sincerely welcome this change of heart, the fact that the Minister is taking these functions unto himself and separating this measure from the Department of Social Welfare. However, we have to be satisfied that the break is clean and that these people will have no hand, act or part in administering this legislation. If they have they will do untold damage and cause unnecessary disputes. The opening sentence of the new section deals with the creation of a tribunal which is to be known as the Redundancy Appeals Tribunal. It sets out the composition of that Tribunal, a chairman who shall be a practising barrister or a solicitor of seven years' standing, not more than three vice-chairmen, and not more than eight ordinary members.
I join with Deputy Jones and others in expressing the view that the Minister has chosen the wrong word in "tribunal." The word "tribunal" has a sorry connotation in the minds of our people, particularly in the minds of the working classes. We immediately conjure up visions of an army tribunal before which an unfortunate person is arraigned, charged with a political crime, in circumstances in which he is condemned before he is actually tried, and the question of his innocence is of little consequence. The word "board" would be far more appropriate. The Minister in his brief remarks this evening, seemed to indicate that he was not too enamoured of the word "tribunal" and that he might be favourably disposed towards accepting the word "board" instead. It would be a far more appropriate word.
Deputy Mullen vociferously opposed the appointment as chairman of a practising barrister, lawyer or solicitor. With his close association with the trade union movement, he set out clearly his reasons for objecting to the appointment of a lawyer. He pointed out that a lawyer, as such, does not necessarily have a better knowledge or understanding of affairs than what we call a layman, in these circumstances.
The Minister should have regard to the fact that up to now negotiations between employers and employees have been carried out by direct negotiation, to the complete exclusion of lawyers, except when they were called in to interpret a point of law.
It would be far better if this board or tribunal were allowed to appoint its own chairman and vice-chairman rather than have the Minister foist a lawyer on it. There is an old and true saying that the people who pay the piper are entitled to call the tune. It is fair to point out that in this proposed legislation the State is contributing nothing to the funds. The fund will be made up of subscriptions from workers and employers. Employers will contribute 8d per male operative and 6d per female operative, and the male workers will contribute 4d and the female worker 3d. We are therefore entitled to challenge the State's right to foist a lawyer or a barrister on this board or tribunal, without regard to the wishes of those who are contributing to the fund. Those who are paying the piper are entitled to say who is best suited to preside over their functions in a fair and impartial manner. We question the wisdom of appointing a barrister as chairman and I submit that there are very many people, in the Minister's Department in particular, who are far better qualified to preside over this board than a lawyer.
We have very many boards and committees, very many joint industrial councils and trade boards, with highly skilled officers who are thoroughly conversant with the problems of employer-employee relations. We have our Labour Court and in this regard it is significant to point out that there is no lawyer in the Labour Court. We have three layman administering the affairs of industrial relations. With the exception of 1965—when we had a very high incidence of strikes, mainly attributable to the action of the Government of the day in opposing the trade unions' legitimate demands for a fair increase in wages and pinning them down to the ridiculous suggestion of a three per cent increase—the Labour Court has had a very honourable and very successful record in the field of industrial relations. It would take quite a yardstick to measure the good which it has achieved, the goodwill it has built up and its success in avoiding strikes, lock-outs and industrial unrest due to the capable manner in which the members discharged their duties. The law did not come into it.
Only in exceptional cases is the law brought into industrial relations. The trade union movement regards with suspicion and distrust the appointment of a high-ranking barrister of this kind to such a position. On behalf of my Party, I want to say that this is not unreasonable. This is probably traditional in our movement because these right honourable gentlemen have rarely been found on the side of the working classes. They invariably take their stand with the bosses. We see them usually on the side of capital and rarely on the side of labour. Therefore, the Minister will understand our feelings of disquiet and distrust when we see an important position of this kind being doled out to the lawyers.
Looking briefly at this measure, it would be evident to anyone that the chairman of the tribunal will be dealing with essentially industrial relations, not points of law as the Minister would seek to infer. This measure deals with the problem of redundancy. "Redundancy" is merely a sophisticated word to cover up the nakedness of the sack, dismissal, unemployment—the problem of people being thrown ignominiously on the unemployment scrapheap. That is what this Bill is about. The fancy word "redundancy" is not going to cover up the human problem with which so many of us are conversant. This Bill will be dealing with such things as the years of service an employee gave with his employer. There will have to be arbitration on whether or not years of service with a previous employer shall be taken into account. This will be important. If we are going to confine workers to the employment they had with their last employer, to our minds that would be patently unfair. However, I do not want to go into the details of these matters now as we will have ample opportunity when we come to the appropriate section.
I want to point out briefly how much this Bill concerns industrial relations and how important it is that the people administering it and resolving these disputes should be conversant with industrial human problems. The interpretation of the word "redundancy" is bound to arise from time to time. The period of employment involved, periods of illness, time lost due to strikes or lock-outs, time lost due to intermittent employment, to slackness of trade, acts of God such as fire and floods, power breakdowns and the like—whether all this will be taken into account. The calculation of the lump sums involved can prove very vexatious.
I am afraid the Deputy is making a Second Reading speech on this Stage of the Bill. We are on Committee Stage and are dealing with specific amendments, but the Deputy is making a Second Reading speech and bringing everything in the Bill into the discussion on these amendments.
I am merely seeking to dissuade the Minister or anyone else in this House from the foolish notion that the chairman of this tribunal should be a barrister. I contend that he ought to be someone thoroughly conversant with the problems of industry in this country, particularly the problems of labour-employer relations. I sought to show some of the problems that could arise in order to indicate how important it was that this chairman should know exactly what the problems were. If the Chair feels that this is not relevant, I shall have to accept the ruling.
On the section, I trust the Minister will do some rethinking in regard to the appointment of the lawyers. We also have the proposals to appoint three vice-chairmen. For a moment I wondered why three vice-chairmen should be necessary. But, reading through the section, I find there are good reasons for it, reasons I personally accept, in that it is desirable that the tribunal should be readily available and, if required, should be able to meet quickly and conveniently in different parts of the country in order to deal with disputes arising from time to time. Here there is scope for the vice-chairmen to be in different places and to have with them some members of the board in order to resolve these problems. This is a good thing and will, I hope, make for speedy decisions. I trust that is what the Minister has in mind. If I am under a misapprehension, I should be glad if he would tell me so.
I should also like to ask the Minister where, if at all, in this Bill it is spelled out precisely how an aggrieved person can set about making his appeal, whether we will have a suitable form for such an appeal and to whom the appeal will be made. Everyone now knows my scepticism in regard to the part which the Department of Social Welfare may play in this matter. Are we to take it that the appeal will be made, in the first instance, to the local employment exchange? Are we to take it that payment will be made in the local employment exchange? Who then will deal with the appeal? The Minister's name may be mentioned but the Minister will be delegating his powers to some other person. I would like him to say who these deciding officers or appeals officers will be, whether, as I have already said, they will be these types of preachers, these faceless officials we have had to contend with and have had experience of in the Department of Social Welfare, or whether they will be persons suitably trained for dealing with this new problem of redundancy and the appropriate compensation involved.
I want the Minister to realise that the day is gone when we can relate the situation to the outlook enshrined in the social welfare code. This Bill, as I see it, is designed to ennoble labour somewhat in this country, to provide a decent standard of living for workers in the intervening period between unemployment, training and replacement. In that regard we must get away altogether from the concept in the mind of some people in this country of planning down these unfortunates and thinking of them on a subsistence level of existence rather than the reasonably high standards we seek for these people in this measure.
I wish to comment on the amendments, by the Minister and Deputy Jones, that the chairman and three deputy chairmen of the tribunal be drawn from the legal profession. If you want to operate on the theory that the chairman be from the legal profession and he proceeds to introduce into this tribunal legal practices, and then sectional tribunals are set up within the scope of that, it is almost inevitable that the deputy chairmen will also be drawn from the legal profession.
I would not wish to cast any reflection on the legal profession, even though we see some of its exponents in this House make damn fools of themselves, if you do not mind my using that expression. We see the position very frequently in regard to the interpretation of Acts passed through this House, that they are given one interpretation by the legal adviser to the Minister responsible and a completely different interpretation by the legal adviser to a local authority, and this is common practice. What we in the Labour Party are concerned with is to secure, first of all, that this Bill be not delayed, and, secondly, that the people whom the Bill is designed to benefit will not find themselves tangled up in a whole series of legal processes.
There are various arbitration councils which are presided over excellently by barristers and solicitors. There are other arbitration tribunals that operate in much the same way and that are presided over excellently by people from other professions. There have been tribunals set up with employers and workers' organisations, including some important public concerns, and they have agreed that the chairman of the tribunal would not be a lawyer, practising or otherwise. It is wrong to suggest that only those who are trained in law can interpret facts and, to my mind, the bulk of the appeals will not be questions of law but questions of facts. Possibly an industrial consultant, possibly a professor of economics or a student of economics, a secondary teacher or anyone else with the necessary knowledge, should be able to preside excellently over this type of tribunal.
The section also makes reference to the introduction of legal representation. It is now generally accepted that had the trade union movement in 1946 accepted the pressure at that stage to introduce legal practices in the Labour Court, that body would not have functioned as well as it has functioned. The machinery of that body has its faults but efforts have been made to cure those faults. There are objections to the way appeals are dealt with in the Department of Social Welfare. Those objections may be well founded, but the proposed system would make the situation more difficult. I wish to quote subsection (17) (a):
The Tribunal shall, on the hearing of any matter referred to it under this section, have power to take evidence on oath and for that purpose may cause to be administered oaths to persons attending as witnesses at such hearing.
The suggestion that this tribunal needs this section would appear to indicate that most of the appeals will be dealt with by way of legal process. One wonders whether an appellant should be put to the expense of having to employ counsel in order to have his appeal heard by the tribunal. The danger is that once you enter on this path of legal appeal, the employers, if they want to resist it, will be quite willing to employ senior counsel. Then you may well have a situation in which the tribunal will set up a history of case law in respect of a tribunal which basically will be required to deal with matters of fact. I submit, with all due respect to the legal profession, that they are not always the best judges of matters of fact. There are people in many other professions who are equally good, if not better, judges of matters of fact. For instance, the question whether a person has continuous service for the purposes of the Bill would not require determination by a lawyer. Any good accountant could do that and do it better than most lawyers because that is their particular field.
The purpose of this tribunal, to my mind, is to secure that the appellant will, if, in his opinion, the decision of the deciding officer has been unfair, have some other avenue open to him. If there is clearly a question of law involved, there is a section in the Bill which provides for recourse to the courts, but there is no reason whatsoever why the selection of the chairman should be confined to the legal profession. When I say that I do not want to denigrate the legal profession. I have known cases in which the union of which I am a member have been very satisfied to have a dispute determined, with the consent of their members and the consent of the employers, by somebody from the legal profession acting in the capacity of arbitrator. We knew who the individual was and he had a reputation and ability. On the other hand, we have had people not of the legal profession, economists, teachers, prominent people in vocational schools, professors and so on. I submit it would be a serious mistake to think of this tribunal as being merely a happy hunting ground for legal cases. We must ensure that those who become redundant have their cases dealt with fairly and speedily. The legal profession are not the only people who can judge what is just and fair.
We do not have any real difference with the amendment that the Minister has now added. We have made our point about the legal profession and he has taken note of our representations in that regard. I suggest that in view of the amendment which we put down earlier this year and which the Minister has seen fit to embody to some extent in his own amendment, we have no real disagreement with this amendment. There are other more important differences that arise on this Bill. We have urged that this Bill be implemented as rapidly as possible and certainly we do not want to be chasing red herrings here all night. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister should push this matter to a decision very rapidly as the issue seems to be only the infinitesimal difference between what Deputy Jones has down and what the Minister has down.
I rise again only because of something Deputy Fitzpatrick of Fine Gael said in relation to what I had to say about this section. I want to make it perfectly clear that my objection to it is the word "shall", in relation to having a chairman "who shall be a practising barrister." I understand well that you can get a good practising barrister or solicitor; there are good and bad in every avocation but it is wrong to single out the legal profession as the only people who can do that very necessary job. I have looked through the English and the Six Counties Acts and I have not found such a condition in either of them. I submit the Minister is putting an unnecessary spancel on himself because I noticed in this section that there is provision for the vice-chairman to act in the absence of the chairman but it is not laid down that any of the three vice-chairmen must be a barrister or solicitor.
When the Minister is replying, I should like him to indicate the salary of the chairman. I make this point because in answer to either Deputy Jones or Deputy Fitzpatrick, I heard the Minister saying that the practising barrister or solicitor who would become chairman would cease to practise.
I think it was somebody else who said that.
That makes it more interesting because he can have his finger in a number of pies, and this is my main objection because he will not be entirely free. Finally, when Deputy Fitzpatrick who naturally set out to defend his fraternity, was speaking about the legal profession, he referred to judges, barristers and solicitors. We all know that there have been peculiar decisions by judges and good decisions by judges, but bearing in mind that Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to workmen's compensation, it is only right that it should go on record here when the opportunity presents itself that it has very often happened that were it not for the intervention of the county registrar who has recently resigned, some of the awards made by judges in connection with workmen's compensation would be found by the workers to be most unsatisfactory. That is an instance of how people can differ. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and take out the word "shall" and not make it compulsory that the chairman should be a barrister or solicitor.
It is rather unfortunate that such an amount of time should be devoted to this particular matter in the case of such an important measure as this. We in Fianna Fáil are anxious that this Bill should go through as soon as possible so that its benefits will be passed on to the workers with the minimum delay. The appointment of the chairman seems to be the important issue to which exception is taken. The question is one of securing impartiality and efficiency in a chairman, whether he be a lawyer or a trade union official or anybody else.
We agree.
But there is the point that the employers' representatives may be all barristers or solicitors. The trade union representatives can be barristers and solicitors, if Congress decides to select them.
They will not do that.
It could happen that they would and it could happen that the position would be loaded. It seems the Trade Union Congress will not select any barristers or solicitors while the employers could do so, and probably will, and that would mean, if there was no one with legal knowledge in control, that things could go very much against a man whose appeal was before the tribunal. For that reason, there is great substance in the Minister's amendment and it should be implemented to ensure that the dice will not be loaded against the worker by a number of barristers or solicitors who may be selected by one side. It is important to have someone in control who would be well versed in law and could guide the tribunal in the right direction. However, there are three vice-chairmen and it might well be that at some stage the chair would be taken by people other than barristers or solicitors. I am sure there would be little difference if a particular line were set but it is important that the Minister's amendment which, I think, is loaded in favour of the worker, be accepted.
The employers are likely to employ legal representatives. It is important that a man should have the right to be legally represented. This ties in with the question of a legal mind. If a man desires to be represented by a lawyer, certainly the chairman will add some weight to the tribunal in so far as another legal representative will be in the chair. I have no doubt that a suitable chairman could be obtained from among journalists or trade union officials, employers or other sections of the community, even among Deputies—there are probably some who are suitable—but I think the Minister's amendment is important as it provides that the chairman should be someone with legal training. I think the Labour Party have indicated that Congress will not appoint members of the legal profession——
We have never said that. We have no amendment down on that. We expressed an opinion.
This makes it even more confusing and makes it more important that the worker should be protected and he is protected in this way that there is a person in command who will guide in the proper way, notwithstanding the fact that the employers may employ a number of barristers and the Trade Union Congress may deem this a very necessary step when they are appointing personnel.
Before the Minister deals with that point, I want to refer to a matter which the Minister mentioned in connection with the amendment I have down as to the matters which will be referred to such an appeals board. The matters referred to the board would be the matters which in the original legislation would be referred to the appeals officer and we will be substituting the board for that. These matters are dealt with in section 38:
(a) in relation to a claim for a weekly payment,
(b) as to whether a person is disqualified for a weekly payment,
(c) as to the period of any disqualification for a weekly payment,
(d) as to whether, or at what rate, a redundancy contribution is or was payable by an employer in respect of an employee,
(e) as to who is the employer of an employee, or
(f) on any such other matter relating to this Act as may be prescribed,
These are the matters which would be referred to this appeal board.
In regard to the objection which is being made to a legal person being chairman of the board, I think I made it clear that the reason why a legal person should be appointed is that there may be disputes on matters of fact and there may be persons giving evidence and there may be matters to be examined. For that reason a person trained in the examination of evidence would be a person who might be of assistance to the board.
Deputy Moore raised a question in regard to the appeals that there would be. A later section deals with that in regard to questions that can be referred to the High Court. Our only interest in this respect was to ensure that you would get as chairman of the board someone in whom everybody could have the greatest confidence. I even mentioned to the Minister that before appointing such a chairman from the people he might consider as appointees, he might go to the fountainhead of the law, the Chief Justice.
Deputy O'Leary has indicated the willingness of his Party to accept my main amendment, which would mean accepting the consequential amendments also and the withdrawal of their amendments which they had down before I brought in this amendment. He said that they expressed an opinion about the appointment of a legal person. I still feel that this is a rights tribunal rather than an interests tribunal and there will be cases of individual interpretation of the law as applied to particular cases and I think that one person on the tribunal should have legal experience. There will be other people on the tribunal, people recommended to the Minister by the Congress of Trade Unions and the employers' bodies, so it will not be one person making a decision. I do feel that experience will prove that I am right in saying that we should have somebody experienced in the law. I see this tribunal as being nearer to the administration of justice than, say, to the Labour Court. I do not agree with Deputy Jones about going to the Chief Justice. In making the appointment, the Minister, having the basic qualifications in law established, should have regard to the fitness of the person to deal with this type of case and I should hope that the workers will have the confidence they would have in going to the ordinary courts in this country in going to a tribunal which would have one person capable in the law if the House would accept this tribunal as proposed by me.
Would the Minister change that word "tribunal"?
I am willing to change it. I do not know the connotation the Deputies see in it.
It is a question of semantics.
"Tribunal" gives the idea of neutrality; "board" does not. I am quite willing to change it if the Dáil wants it changed.
I would see nothing wrong with "tribunal".
"Board" is all right.
"Appeals board".
It is not a major point.
It is not a major point.
We could go ahead if the Dáil accepted my proposal and I would propose the consequential amendments, if Deputy Jones and Deputy O'Leary withdrew theirs.
Our consequential amendments, Nos, 36, 37 and 38, would go.
May I make a point in regard to the question of the tribunal? There will be nothing to prevent the Minister providing legal assessors or advisers to the tribunal, instead of having the chairman a legal person. There is a legal adviser attached to the Labour Court.
We could argue it all night.
There is an adviser attached to the Labour Court to deal with any questions of law that may arise. That could well be taken care of by a legal adviser to the tribunal.
The point I was making is that the function of this tribunal will be interpretation of the law rather than assistance at negotiation. We could go on forever.
I am quite prepared to accept some of that but a great deal of the function of the tribunal will, possibly, be the examination of questions of fact. With all due respect, that is not a function in regard to which wisdom lies solely in the legal profession. In our courts for many years, the question of fact has been left to juries. Counsel have argued before them but the facts have been determined, not by the judge, but by the laymen. It is a fairly narrow field.
I think you should accept "tribunal".
I would ask the Minister not to introduce a system that of its very nature can build up to an elaborate legal procedure if you go on the line that the chairman must be drawn exclusively from the legal profession.
You could leave it "may be".
You could decide then.
Do I take it that amendment No. 3 is withdrawn?
It is only a question of "Redundancy Appeals Board" or "Appeals Tribunal".
The chairman should have legal training. The others will not.
Leave it "may be".
There is no point in having it if it is only "may be".
We do not mind your having it in your head.
If it is not in the Bill, the Minister can make an appointment. Supposing it was decided to appoint a person from his own Department who, he is satisfied, would be excellent in the capacity.
We are going to have plenty of differences in this Bill.
It broadens your scope and does not prevent you appointing a legal person, if you wish to. In his own interest, the Minister should get this out of the way.
I have this liberty in relation to the vice-chairman.
Supposing the chairman is not available?
The vice-chairman will act.
If it is a question of fact, something that has to be considered, what happens then? Do you have to adjourn the whole thing until such time as the chairman who has the legal training is available or what procedure could be followed? What the Minister is suggesting is not consistent because a case could fall down if the chairman were ill or unable to be present.
The Deputy said before that the three vice-chairman have to have experience. You might as well say that the district court could be run by someone with a legal adviser.
I believe that this tribunal has to do with rights.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is overlooking one thing. He is assuming that if he appoints a legal adviser, that legal adviser will be in a judicial position and will have the rights of a judge to decide on certain things. We know, and the Minister knows, that there are quite a number of these people that the Minister would not like to have defending him or representing him. There could be people who were not doing well in their profession and who would grab this, and we could finish up with a group of half-baked people who would do a lot of harm to the confidence of the people in the court. Some of these people might have legal experience and very little else. We all know that there are a number of very good people in that field, and that there are a number of very poor people in that field—poor in both senses of the word because they are not finding it easy to make a living. They will be prepared to perch on the Minister's fence.
I can quite see the justification of seeking to have a lawyer as chairman of this tribunal. If I had a grievance and if I thought that my rights were being infringed in some way, the person I would go to, naturally, to find out if I had a case, would be a lawyer. If it is a vice-chairman who is the lawyer, you could have a situation where the chairman was turning to a vice-chairman every five minutes on a point of law. We should realise that the main function of the tribunal will be to see that a man's rights are not infringed. I believe that a lawyer is the best qualified person to know whether or not that is occurring.
(Interruptions.)
If the Minister proceeds along those lines, he will build up for himself and his colleagues very wide machinery of legal process. There are many people now practising law who would make excellent chairmen of such a tribunal. There are many other people who would be quite competent to perform the duties of chairman. I suggest that the Minister should look at this very carefully.
As an alternative to a lawyer, whom would the Deputies suggest?
Journalists, civil servants.
It could be an accountant or a doctor of economics.
We are widening the field.
I have listened for a long time to this case being made and I am inclined to hold with the Minister. When this Bill becomes law, it will be a matter of interpreting it, and it will be a matter of justice between the worker and the employer. If he is unfairly dealt with, the representatives will be there to maintain justice within the Act. I do not think that great use will be made of this tribunal. I think there will be only the odd case, and I hope there is. I should like to feel that we will get this legislation through quickly this evening so that those who will benefit from it will benefit as quickly as possible. Deputy Larkin mentioned a legal assessor but in the case of a legal assessor, you either abide by his decision or you do not. I hope this tribunal will have an arbitrary function. I hold with the Minister that it should be a qualified barrister——
Or solicitor.
Or anyone.
This is a matter of the workers' rights and the employers' rights and it will be a matter of the interpretation of their rights, once this Bill becomes law.
We have been trying to widen the scope of the people who could fill the position. That does not exclude barristers. We are making the point that there is a danger that this whole thing could become a nest of barristers. You said earlier that you considered that since there was no requirement in the case of the vice-chairmen, it could happen that we would have barristers and these other occupations; but, thinking it over now, the Minister thinks that all three vice-chairmen may have to be barristers or solicitors. Why not simply say: "The tribunal shall consist of the following members; (a) a chairman—full stop; (b) not more than three vice-chairmen; (c) not more than three ordinary members."
What we are worried about is the exclusion of other people.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
What does the Minister think of that suggestion?
Order. Deputy Moore.
The Labour Party have shown how little they really think——
We will sit here all night.
We have no objection to this being made retrospective.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Make it retrospective, if you are so concerned about the workers.
The point is that there are lawyers in the labour ranks. I suppose every union has its legal adviser. I do not hold it against any man that he is a lawyer. All Parties are agreed that this Bill is vitally essential. I do not care whom the Minister appoints; all I want is that we should make progress here. There might be four tribunals sitting in different parts of the country and, as the Bill stands, only one would be a lawyer. The whole importance of his position is lessened if we do not insist that the three vice-chairmen must also be lawyers.
That is what the Minister said a moment ago.
And I am saying it now. The Minister also said this is a matter of rights. It is not like the Labour Court, where it is a matter of interests. Where rights are concerned it is a good thing to have a legal person capable of defining rights. I think we are wasting too much time on this. As I said, all Parties are agreed that the Bill is necessary. If the Bill is not passed expeditiously the possibility is that some workers may be adversely affected.
We were looking for this before Fianna Fáil ever thought of it. The Labour Party thought of it five years ago.
(Interruptions.)
I must insist that Deputy Moore be allowed to speak without interruption. He is entitled to speak without interruption and should be allowed to do so.
Had this Bill been passed in the last session, the workers in Rawsons might very well be covered by it. We want to make sure now that there will not be another case like Rawsons in the future.
Will the Minister accept our suggestion?
Apparently we have to persuade Deputy Moore and his colleagues that this Party will not allow this measure to be rushed through indiscriminately. Our function is to examine critically and ensure that the maximum benefit will be conferred on the workers concerned. The time wasting so far as this Bill is concerned has been on the side of Fianna Fáil because, prior to the recess, when this Party was crying out for the passing and implementation of the Bill, we had hoisted on us the Marts Bill——
On a point of explanation, I promised the House before the recess that the starting date would not be delayed by waiting until after the recess to complete the legislation.
Very good. We will not accept the unfair inference that, because we examine the measure critically, we are holding up the legislation. I personally would love to see this Bill applying to my fellow workers in Dundalk, in Electra here in Dublin and in other areas throughout the country. The workers in Dundalk have been thrown on the scrapheap through no fault of their own and, if there is any humanity on the Government side of the House, they will adopt the suggestion made by Deputy Corish prior to the recess that the Bill should be implemented as and from 1st January, 1967, instead of coming into force, as the Minister proposes, on 1st January, 1968. The adoption of Deputy Corish's suggestion would benefit the unfortunate people to whom I have referred.
The Minister has created the impression that this Bill is not introduced because of fear of widespread redundancy or unemployment. He seems to be very confident that he is containing the situation. Deputy Moore is of the same opinion. I rejoice that there is even a slim hope, therefore, of taking in under this measure these small pockets of workers to whom I have referred.
I am on record already as opposing the terminology. I do not retract any of the arguments I made in support of my opposition. I still believe the appointment of legal men to chair this tribunal is wrong. It may have serious reprecussions. It now transpires that not only will we have a barrister as chairman but the three vice-chairmen will also be lawyers.
That is as long as the present Minister is in power.
Deputy Andrews is very happy. His profession is getting the plums in respect of this tribunal——
That has nothing to do with it.
——and he ought to be very happy. His representations have met with some real success in this matter.
There were no representations about this. Is the Deputy implying that there were representations from the legal profession? How far is he going to go into the realms of imagination? The Deputy asked me questions today which, if he had read the Bill, he would not have had to ask and now he is going into his imagination for things that never happened.
The questions I asked are relevant to this particular section and I have not been answered by the Minister.
They are answered by the Bill but it was not read by the Deputy.
I have read the Bill and I want the Minister to clarify for me what is meant here in this subsection (15)——
We have not reached subsection (15). This is amendment No. 3, which is the initial point of discussion.
I thought we were taking section 39.
No, we are taking amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Jones and there are a number of amendments which are being discussed with it because they cover points relevant to the matter contained in the section which the Minister proposes to insert.
I accept the Ceann Comhairle's ruling, but if he had been here today when we were discussing this matter, he would know that there was wide scope and that there was reference to the matters which I would wish to advert to now. However, if the Minister is going to give us three lawyers to control this board or tribunal, what he is clearly seeking to do is to constitute it a court of law. This is now emerging—a court of law whose decisions would be final and binding and the only appeal would be appeal to the High Court. I pose the question: what chance has the average operative in this country, especially an operative who might be a member of a trade union, of gaining access to the High Court? Indeed, even a strong union would think twice about taking an issue to the High Court, having regard to the delay, having regard to the cost and having regard to the risk involved. Therefore in all the circumstances, what we are seeking to do here is to create a court of law and you cannot blame any of us if we look at that situation with the utmost suspicion and distrust. It may well transpire that such a tribunal would not be availed of by the working class people of this country.
I should like to make a few points. I should like to make it clear to Deputy Treacy and the Socialist Party that it was Deputy Molloy who asked for this measure to be hastened and the Minister has explained why it has not been hastened. Deputy Treacy and the Socialist Party, and indeed Deputy M. O'Leary, are trying to make out in this House that all the lawyers are ogres.
Some lawyers.
This is very far from the truth. The traditions of the Bar are there and it is a well settled tradition that when poor people come to lawyers and cannot afford to litigate, the lawyers will do it for them for nothing.
That is a joke.
It is one of the main traditions of the Bar. Deputy Treacy always aligns himself with the workers but if he goes down to any docker in the city of Dublin who cannot afford to litigate, he will find that he can go to any solicitor or barrister and he will take up his case without any question of fee. This is the situation and this is a great tradition of the Irish Bar and of the Irish legal profession.
The Minister has made it very clear that he is not going to give in to the semantics of the Socialist Party or the Labour Party—I do not know what to call them——
We will do with "Socialist".
We will discuss that later. The Minister is not going to take any Tom, Dick or Harry from the Bar or the solicitors. He is going to get an intelligent man, a man who knows what he is talking about, who knows something about industrial relations.
Deputy Treacy talks about erecting this tribunal or board—another question of semantics—into a court. The only function of the chairman, vicechairmen and eight ordinary members is an interpretation of rights. It is quite as simple as that and there is no question of erecting this tribunal into a court. You can also, of course, follow that up and if, as I read it, the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the board, he has his right in common law. Is that not the size of it?
I should certainly like to make it very clear that lawyers, no matter what the Labour Party say about them, are notorious for their fairness and I think Deputy Treacy is being unfair to the legal profession in the manner in which he is attacking them here this evening. Many members of the trade unions are very glad from time to time to come to the legal profession. Let us be fair about it and let us get the thing into perspective. Deputy M. O'Leary, as far as my information goes, was not above intending at one time pursuing a legal career and fair play to him.
I had a lot of intentions at one time before I came into this place. To bring this matter to the issue, would the Minister accept dropping out everything after "chairman"?
No.
Right; well, we do not intend to bleed here all night for the traditions of the Irish Bar. There are far more important things in this Bill and I will ask the Minister now— it is strange that I should be pushing the Minister into this action——
(Interruptions.)
Order.
There are a few small differences between Deputy Jones and the Minister on this matter of the tribunal. I do not know if they want to settle it up among themselves. It seems to us a very small point. We have raised most of our points and I would suggest that we clear this matter up so that we can get on to something else.
I propose that what I spoke on be accepted. I think it meets all the deliberate proposals of the Labour Party in their amendments and it is not far removed from what Deputy Jones wanted. I think the scheme as proposed by me is better.
We withdraw our consequential amendments.
The first amendment is amendment No. 3. That will clear the way for a great many of the others.
It will. The only point there is that the Minister might accept this question of "board".
I will accept that, if the Deputy persists.
The Labour Party are satisfied with "tribunal".
We are satisfied with "board" also. We do not think it matters.
I think my other amendments are in line with the Minister's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".
I would like to ask the Minister what date he has in his mind for the operation of the Act?
The 1st of January. As I told the House before the recess, I undertook the work which could be undertaken so that waiting until now for Committee Stage will not change the commencement date, unless we have a very long Committee Stage.
Is there any chance that it would be in operation earlier?
No, I think 1st January is the earliest we could do it.
If the Dáil and Seanad pass this before 30th November, is it possible it would be in operation before 1st December?
No. The preparation of the scheme, the printing of stamps and leaflets will involve a lot of work.
There is no chance of having retrospection?
No.
Is the Minister confirmed in his opinion that there is no hope of retrospection to cover the few instances to which I adverted to earlier in respect of Rawsons and Electra?
The Deputy will understand that retrospection to cover one period would be unfair to the immediate period before that. Any measure of this kind will have to have an operation date and before that time, people will be cut out. No matter what retrospection you had, you would be cutting people out of benefit before it so it is better to have a commencement date.
Would the Minister not consider those were very exceptional cases? He has had very strong representations made to him by the unions. Would the Minister not reconsider this?
I have had equally strong representations in respect of firms and employees who had redundancy last year or the year before. There is no way of retrospection in this type of weekly payment. It would be a terrific charge on the fund if you had lump sum payments going back for a long time.
If it were made retrospective for longer than 12 months, it would be hard on the fund. Could the Government not make it retrospective for the past 12 months?
What about the 12 months before that?
We appreciate that it would not be possible to go back very far.
I have had all sorts of representations made for a longer period.
Listen to the Deputies who are asking you now for 12 months.
The 1st January, 1967 was suggested by Deputy Corish in the concluding remarks of his speech before the summer recess. At that time you were not holding out as firmly as you are now.
I was quite clear at that time that there would be no retrospection.
The Minister has to make decisions, the same as the Minister for Finance and the Department of Social Welfare in regard to salaries and amounts of increases and payments which will be made. I do not think it is sufficient to say how far back they will go.
The main consideration is that we want to give this payment to those people who are declared redundant.
I do not think he would consider that you were unjust to him if you looked after those other people.
This applies to every piece of legislation.
You will always have that.
You will not do it?
No.
You do not understand the working class mentality.
This matter has been highlighted for the Government by reason of the debate on television in relation to the lack of any notice to employees of Electra.
The Deputy will appreciate that Electra was not long enough in existence.
Rawsons were.
This is something we can go into on another section.
Potez are a firm that have never opened.
I know the Deputy has to go through this. Could I say finally that there will be no retrospection?
We will be much more tolerant on this Bill than either of you were on the Marts Bill.
I am trying to say to Deputy Treacy that no amount of argument——
——will shift you.
Even in the light of the terrible hardship of those people.
I have said there will be no retrospection.
You will have to do it if Deputy Aiken succeeds and the Yank comes over.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, lines 41 and 42, to delete "for all benefits".
Under the social welfare code, as it is, there are provisions to exclude from benefit certain people, for instance, one class of menial employees. It is logic, I think, to ensure that if people are insurable under the social welfare code for any benefits they ought to be able to qualify for benefits under this Bill. I would like the Minister to tell me why those people should be excluded from benefit. If people can be excluded under the social welfare code from benefit, it is reasonable to assume that they should be covered in this legislation.
I think the extent of the change in the Bill which this amendment would bring about would bring in classes who generally would not be expected to benefit by the Bill at any time. Most of them would be in permanent, pensionable employment.
Menial employees would not. Court messengers are mentioned in the social welfare code.
I would have to find out more about those people. The cases which I have excluded are the vast majority of people who have protection against redundancy in their own employment. The Bill covers all workers who are covered for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts and that covers the great bulk of manual workers and clerical workers earning under £1,200 a year. I have said before that this is largely experimental, as we are breaking new ground, and I would be open to changing the provisions of the legislation in the light of experience. As of now I do not think we should widen the scope beyond what I have said, that is people insured for all benefits under the social welfare Acts.
Did I understand that this particular section applies only to clerical workers under £1,200 a year? Does the Minister not consider he should go higher than that? Surely he realises in the matter of redundancy it could be found that people with £1,500 and £1,800 a year would be affected and could be very badly off. Why is there £1,200 a year? What is the case for that?
People covered for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts.
I am only making the point that I understood the Minister to say that payments under this Bill cannot be applied to clerical workers who are in receipt of more than £1,200 a year. Is this so? Surely this calls for something to be done. Money values are depreciating. Wage increases are being given and surely it will not mean that when this Bill becomes law that a lot of people will be excluded from it. The Minister should go into this and give it further consideration.
As I said, most of the people excluded will be people with pension schemes of their own and in permanent employment. The level of £1,200 is taken from the Social Welfare Acts and I do not think we should change it in this Bill.
I know it is in the Social Welfare Acts.
If experience shows that there is any group that should be brought in, I am open to make changes, if necessary. As a start, all the people who are covered under the Social Welfare Acts are in the most vulnerable position.
I appreciate what the Minister means when he says that we should have a look at it in the light of experience. If this Bill becomes law and the situation comes about where a clerical worker with £1,200 is declared redundant and it is brought to his notice, will he have some power under this Bill. How does the Minister propose to do it? Has he to wait until a number of cases are built up and then decide? I know a host of clerical workers who are not regarded as well off with £1,250 per year and they could very easily be caught up in this. I should like to know at what stage the Minister will give it consideration. Will this become automatic or will it be necessary to have it examined? This is too old-fashioned.
In protecting people against redundancy, we have to select the people first of all who are likely to suffer redundancy, people who are not protected in their employment. The people I have excluded are, in general, those whom we do not expect to suffer from redundancy as far as we can foresee. Not everybody is covered I agree, but to get the scheme going we have picked the groups of workers who are likely to need the benefit.
Surely the Minister appreciates that there are all types of workers in industry, some of whom are paid more than others. I can tell the Minister that quite recently in a certain establishment people were declared redundant. Some of the people concerned had £12 a week, others had £13 and some had £30 but they were declared redundant and got nothing at all. It transpired that their employer was taking example from what happened around him. My point is why stop at £1,200. I regard this as another way of hammering clerical workers. It is extremely unfair. I do not think it is intentional on the Minister's part, and I would ask him to have his advisers look at it.
There are certain categories of workers, travellers, for instance, who may not come within the scope of the Social Welfare Acts. That means that they might be employed over a period of years and their firm is affected by economic circumstances and other employees in the same firm are let go. Because they are not insurable they will not get any benefit. I make this particular point because a case came to my mind of a person who was a traveller who had been drawing a contributory pension for a number of years and the employer appealed to the courts and got a decision in his favour. A person who had been drawing a contributory pension for something like ten years could then be told that he was not entitled to benefit because he was not insurable. There must be many cases in which employees will not come under the scope of the Social Welfare Acts for benefit and they will be excluded although they might be just in as great a need for protection as anyone working in any undertaking. There is also the case of people in employment in which, because of certain conditions of employment, they have not for a long time stamped insurance cards and are covered for certain limited purposes only. Will they be excluded? I am not quite sure about that but I should like to raise it with a mark of interrogation at this moment.
The reason they are excluded is that they have their own schemes in public authorities.
In many cases they may have sick pay schemes but not redundancy schemes.
I think most of these classes would be unlikely to become redundant.
How are they unlikely?
They are in permanent pensionable employment.
The Minister is not on quite clear ground when he says they are covered by existing schemes because the schemes are not as widespread as he thinks. There are a number of clerical workers who would be open to the winds of redundancy.
The amendment would bring in people in permanent and pensionable employment such as national teachers, officers and members of the permanent Defence Forces and other classes who are in permanent pensionable employment.
The only point we are making is that this £1,200, according as we review our estimate as to what extent Social Welfare recipients should be covered, is becoming rapidly unrealistic and there are many grades who are in the so-called "genteel" profession, who are above the ordinary, who are finding it hard to make ends meet today because of the increasing cost of living. There are cases in which, if redundancy occurs, there is not a satisfactory welfare scheme. Perhaps the Minister would look at it once more.
The contributions are linked to social welfare and I do not know any way you could change it.
Would the Minister say whether it would not apply to the classes of workers over £1,200 a year if they were covered by some other means or arrangements in their employment? I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should have a look at the provisions of the British Government legislation with regard to this type of redundancy. It is wrong to leave these people to the mercy of an employer who will abscond.
Whom are you talking about?
I am talking about people with £1,200 and over £1,200 a year.
You are talking about employers absconding. Has anybody in the House any idea of the number of people not employed in private schemes with over £1,200 who should be brought into this? You are making the case.
Just making a possible case.
I know of a considerable number of clerical workers who have over £1,200 a year who are not covered by private schemes. I would not be referring to these people at all if I found they were covered by some other means but I am making this point only because they are being excluded. I can see these people being employed in an industry, the workers in which find they get some benefits out of a Redundancy Payments Bill. All workers concerned in the industry will get it, with the exception of those earning over £1,200 a year. We know there are people who reach a certain stage in a job receiving certain types of perquisites. In some cases they get a pension—there is a pension scheme—or a bonus.
The question is how to make practical law of what the Deputy says. Deputy Jones's amendment will bring in national and secondary teachers.
I am not advocating a particular way in which this can be dealt with but I think the Minister should at least recognise the point and, if he wants to overcome it, I suggest he should have a look at a way of relieving the situation.
I shall have a look at the matter and see what can be done, but, from my studying of the situation, I do not think I will be able to succeed in it.
The Minister was asked how many people were covered by private schemes. What do you mean by private schemes?
Private superannuation schemes have redundancy cover in them——
When you reach a certain age limit. I would say there are very few people involved.
In regard to the matter mentioned by the Minister with reference to, say, teachers, at this stage, I think he must be aware that when teachers' salaries were raised some years ago, even women teachers were excluded from the benefits of social welfare but were allowed to contribute in a voluntary fashion. By regulation of the Minister, they were cut out from these benefits. The same applies to secondary teachers. By regulation made by the Minister, they are cut out from benefiting in this fashion, except in so far as a widow's pension is concerned.
During the Second Reading debate, I mentioned technicians and the clerical worker earning, say, £1,201. I gave that as a notional figure. At present we have technical people in industry. They would be earning something in that region of wages and would be excluded if the industry goes out of operation, if redundancy occurs and, as Deputy Mullen says, all other people are protected while these are not.
I think this must be qualified. I am thinking of the selfemployed person who might not be earning £1,200, or even £800, and thousands like him—many of our small farmers—who might become redundant over the years. When we show concern for the £1,200 bracket clerical workers, we should think of other classes existing up and down the country.
Will the Minister have a look at this point?
I will, but I do not see how I can do it.
The Minister has no intention of going in this direction?
I will undertake to see if anything can be done but I do not hold out any hope of being able to do so.
There is a case to be made also for travellers, insurance agents and such people who are not in insurable employment, and yet many of them would earn less than £1,200. Under this Bill there is no protection for such people. Surely the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide some redundancy compensation for people who become redundant. Take people engaged in the drapery trade. You can have a situation there in which the people in the shops are covered. You can have porters, packaging workers or travellers who may not be covered for insurance, particularly those who travel on a credit system; yet they can fall the victim to redundancy. I suggest the Minister might look at this to see if they can be covered under this Bill.
I shall examine it to see if it is possible.
If the Minister cannot do so, may I respectfully suggest that he urge the employers to make some arrangement for the people to whom we are referring?
Of course, Deputies will understand that this scheme was never intended to relieve employers from making arrangements for their employees.
I have in mind a tremendous number of different types of workers who will be affected by this, those with even less than £1,200.
Obviously, there is some ambiguity or doubt as to the various categories of workers who are covered by this Bill. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would clarify the situation. On reading the Bill, my impression is that all those in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts would be covered by this Bill with, obviously, certain exceptions—workers who are under the age of 18 or over 65 years, and certain other categories. But I was rather perturbed when the Minister intimated at one stage in the debate that employees of local authorities would not be covered by this measure. Perhaps he was referring to pensionable and permanent officers of local authorities only.
Permanent pensionable.
I take it that employees of local authorities— machinery men and roadworkers generally—are covered by this measure, even though they do enjoy a superannuation scheme, a pension scheme as such. They are obviously subject to terrible insecurity of employment. They have no guarantee of continuity of employment and redundancy takes place from time to time in respect of road workers; indeed with the steep reduction in the road grants this year, many of us fear there will be unemployment for many men in the respective county council areas. I hope the Minister will satisfy me that such road workers and other council employees affected will be covered by the redundancy scheme.
If they are covered for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, they will come under the scheme.
Would the Minister say what the position is in regard to farm labourers—will they be covered fully by this Redundancy Bill?
Is this to be by way of question and answer?
We are just seeking clarification.
If the Deputy sits down, I will give him the answer. This scheme, when brought in under this legislation, if we get it through, will cover farm workers and other workers for whom there may be special schemes; but until such time as the special schemes have been worked out, this scheme will apply. I have attempted to get discussions going on an employer-employee representative basis for the purpose of working out a scheme for farm labourers. I have invited the Congress of Trade Unions to take the workers' advice and in Press advertisements I have invited people who consider themselves to be representative of employers for discussions like we have had in the building industry. I have had some response but it has not been total. Until such time——
That is a change of heart.
At any rate, the farm workers are covered, pending special arrangements. Another point I should like to make is in respect of the people covered by the Bill. The wording is chosen very carefully—they should be insurable for all benefits, and I emphasise "all", under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966. We know of certain categories of workers who are insured under the Social Welfare Acts but not comprehensively insured for all benefits. I have in mind particularly psychiatric nurses, male and female, attached to our mental health institutions. They are covered by the Social Welfare Acts, mainly for widows and orphans benefits only. In the circumstances, I should be grateful if the Minister would give us an assurance that such people will not be debarred from benefits under this Bill. They are not comprehensively insured. He will find certain categories of that kind in respect of whom I should like to be satisfied that they will be covered for benefit.
They would be permanent, pensionable employees who are unlikely to become redundant.
They would be a source of revenue to the fund.
Such people never become redundant. There are other categories, who are very unlikely to be affected by redundancy. They include persons doing piecework in their own homes, other than male weavers; persons engaged in share fishing on a seasonal, casual or part-time basis; members of the permanent Defence Force; members of the Army Nursing Service; pensionable civil servants; officers of the permanent Defence Force; permanent and pensionable officers and servants of local and public authorities; permanent and pensionable employees of statutory transport undertakings whose terms and conditions of employment provide for payment during illness on a basis considered adequate by the Minister; pensionable national teachers; pensionable incremental secondary teachers; pensionable teachers in domestic science training colleges recognised by the Minister for Education; vocational teachers. They are the classes and largely they are covered.
Is it pertinent to refer to age limits?
The ages are dealt with in amendments by Deputy O'Leary.
Will the Minister consider this point?
I will consider it but I cannot hold out any hope of providing a scheme to take in everybody.
The Minister has said members of the permanent Defence Force are excluded. They have insurance stamps being paid for them as if they were in civilian employment. When they leave the Army, they have one disadvantage that if they are not trained for some trade in the Army, they find it extremely difficult to get civilian employment. Most of them leave the Army at ages ranging from 40 to 50 years. Would the Minister not consider including them for retraining, if not for redundancy payments?
They will be eligible for retraining.
I know, but there is no coverage for redundancy payments and at the present time they are paid only small gratuities. The State has left them without employment and it might be better if they were brought completely under the Bill. If arrangements could be made so that they would be assured of training or retraining, it would be a good idea.
Their eligibility for training and retraining would not be connected with redundancy. They would not have to come under the provisions of this Bill to be covered. They could go to an employment exchange——
We know what happens to ex-Army men when they come out.
There will be better placement, guidance and training services.
Is the Minister rejecting the amendment?
Yes.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand", put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, line 42, after "1966" to insert "and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment".
This is a drafting amendment. A qualification for redundancy payment is that a person should have been an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts immediately before the date of the termination of his employment. As drafted, section four does not bring in the second part of the definition and the amendment is designed to correct the position and to ensure that persons who pass out of insurable employment remain within the scope of the Bill during the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.
We accept this.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, line 46, to delete "25" and substitute "21".
We consider the number of hours per week to be a little on the long side. We wish to reduce it to 21 hours in the week, in conformity with the situation in Northern Ireland. Generally, our views in this connection follow the terms which prevail in Northern Ireland. Many people in permanent casual jobs—office cleaners and so on—would be excluded if this change is not made.
Anything less than 25 hours a week would be subsidiary employment: it would not be the main employment of the person concerned. I suppose one might say that a person in such employment would hardly continue in it for four years or more to qualify for redundancy, that is, a person with less than 25 hours a week. If anybody can produce evidence that there is a large section of people whose main employment is less than 25 hours a week, I should be prepared to consider it.
The Minister himself has the answer. He was talking earlier about Social Welfare. The Department of Social Welfare produced the evidence the Minister asks for. If a person is in employment of 17 hours or over per week, such person is insurable under the regulations of the Department of Social Welfare and it is not considered part-time employment. If it is under 17 hours per week, it is considered part-time and need not be insurable. If the Department of Social Welfare accept that 17 hours per week is sufficient for a person who is depending on it for a livelihood, then surely it would be accepted by the Minister for Labour as the slide rule?
I shall have a look at it. However, if we reduce the number of hours, we will be asking people to pay contributions for employment, which is probably not their main employment.
Seventeen hours is sufficient for the Department of Social Welfare.
That is social welfare, but what about redundancy?
Will the Minister accept the 21 hours?
I am prepared to do so if the evidence supports it.
We shall look for a vote if the Minister does not accept it.
If a fair number of people are working for less than 25 hours per week——
The Department of Social Welfare do not ask if there is one person or 5,000 persons in the country: they simply say that a person working 17 hours or more per week is bound to stamp his or her social welfare card. If it is qualification enough for the Department of Social Welfare, the Minister should accept it.
I shall examine the matter. I am prepared to accept it if there is evidence in favour of it.
Will the Minister make it 17 hours?
Twenty-one hours.
This is a provision in the 1965 Act. This is new legislation. We talk about harmonising. Surely this is an opportunity to do so?
I am prepared to accept it.
Twenty-one hours? The Minister accepts our amendment?
I may put in an amendment on another Stage. I am not so sure that the amendment as worded by the Deputy would fit in but I shall make the change.
We shall accept the Minister's phraseology.
On the Minister's assurance that he will bring in a suitable amendment, we beg leave to withdraw amendment No. 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Perhaps amendment No. 12 could be taken with amendment No. 7? It seems to be related to it.
We should prefer to take amendment No. 12 separately. I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, line 47, to delete paragraph (b).
This is an important point. There may be a worker at the age of 20 who will not qualify for cover under this Act for any redundancy payment because he has not four years' service with the same employer. If he is excluded under 18 years and if it begins at 18 and if he is rendered redundant at 20 then he is outside the scope of this Bill when enacted. Therefore, he should commence at the age of 16, so that, if declared redundant at the age of 20, he would come within the terms of this measure. The age for starting should be 16 and not 18.
Has Deputy O'Leary in mind the taking into consideration of the apprenticeship period? Has that aspect been taken into consideration in allowing for a young man who has spent, say, two years as an apprentice? Would that be taken as part of the four years: he has been working for, say, two years?
I like the point of prudence on the part of Deputy Briscoe. In other words, are we asked to consider the position of the unfortunate employer who may not have been getting his full pound of flesh for the two years before 18 when the young man was an apprentice? If any chap has been working with the same employer from the age of 16 to 20, then he merits some redundancy payment. Even though he may have been an apprentice, he has been working with the same employer. After a certain period of working with the same employer, we assume the worker has a certain ownership right in his job, even if he had been an apprentice.
Deputy O'Leary thinks I am concerned only that the employer will get his pound of flesh, as he puts it. I am concerned for the young man who completes his apprenticeship period and works for the same employer for two years and then the employer goes out of business. Will that person's service be assessed only for two years rather than for two years plus the two years' apprenticeship? In other words, he will have been in that employment for four years. I feel it should be allowed.
The Deputy is siding with us, is he?
I am suggesting to the Minister that some consideration should be given to such a case.
We are agreed, then?
I feel it is a fair proposal to put to the Minister.
Again, the question of the age at which insurable employment commences arises. The worker is insured at 16. Why should the Minister, then, have considered the age 18? The worker pays full rates at 16. If he must pay insurance from the age of 16 then should he not be entitled to have the benefit applied to him from that age and to have that age considered as the starting age? There does not seem to be any reason for 18 except that you put up your hand and say "18". In modern times, lots of young men of 18 get married. We see them around this city. If we do not start it at the insurable age, which is 16, we shall exclude a number of married people who have families to support even at as early an age as 20. If the Minister will look at the Department of Social Welfare arrangement I am sure he will agree that 16 is the age and not 18.
Does the Minister accept that?
I should like the Minister to take into account the fact that people, especially those who are forced to go into manual work, particularly industrial work of one kind or another, are inclined to go into it immediately after school, usually at 14 years of age. This is particularly true of industry where boys and girls who cannot pursue higher education enter it at the age of 14. The Minister will agree that it would be unfair to deny them four years work in industry before they could qualify, at 18 years, for redundancy pay benefits. When a recession occurs and when dismissals are pending, it invariably happens—and trade unionists take care of this—that the rule of seniority applies. Last in, first out is a dictum which is rather sacred to many of us in the trade union movement. There will be a large group of young people, therefore, in dire need of coverage under this Bill and who are being excluded if we stick rigidly to the age limit of 18. A worker is obliged by law to be insured under the Social Welfare Acts at 16. That being the case, he should be covered by this Bill.
Therefore, I hope the Minister will realise the importance of this amendment. When redundancy occurs these younger people, who may be 18 years of age, and who are not now covered by this Bill, will have already given four years of their young lives to an industry and who, as the Minister said, will have a stake in that industry, and will have created a fundamental right to recognition for the part they played in building up that industry. It will be through no fault of their own that they will become disemployed. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to amend the age from 18 to 16. The age 16 is reasonable and just and we have the precedent for it under the Social Welfare Acts.
Will the Minister accept this?
I do not think it is necessary or desirable that anybody at 20 years of age should have redundancy payment. I will go some of the way. I would be willing to bring the age to 16 for benefit purposes but not to benefit before the age 22. This would mean that the man would get the benefit of the two years extra service if he is redundant after 22.
That is obviously unfair. If a married man of 20 who has four years is declared redundant it is no comfort to him to be told: "It is a pity you were not born two years earlier". There is no point in starting at 16 and making the benefits payable at 22. It amounts to the same thing.
If you give the benefit of two years you are giving him the extra benefit when he would need it most. I would reckon it from 16. I do not think it is desirable to have redundancy payments at 20.
How many of Rawsons employees were only 20 years of age with family commitments? There is no point in saying: "You are not old enough to get it" if they have family commitments and are out of a job after four years. The Minister should go the whole hog and say: "All right, they would be entitled to benefit". I would understand his idea better if there was not this problem of so many people aged 20 years and upwards who have family commitments.
What exactly does the Minister mean?
It would mean that a person who became redundant at 28 or 30 would have two years extra in reckoning for benefit. It is going some of the way. I will bring in an amendment.
If the Minister accepts the spirit of the amendment, he will realise that it covers all those people insured under the Social Welfare Acts, under which people are insured at 16. Why not include these people? Why exclude them?
The Minister is having it both ways.
I do not think it desirable to have redundancy payments at so young an age. That is why 18 years was picked, to make it 22. I could see that a man reaching the age of 30 and becoming redundant should have the benefit of the two years.
He could not have four years service at the age of 18 without having started at 14.
We are not suggesting starting at 14. The years 16 to 18 are the missing years.
You have to have four years' service before you qualify.
Does the Minister not accept that the whole point in the Redundancy Payments Bill is to help workers to rehabilitate themselves over periods when they are laid off from what to them was a permanent job? Is that not the whole basis of it? If somebody starts working, perhaps, under the age of 16 years, and stamps insurance cards from 16 on and becomes redundant at 20, if he has family commitments, is he not as much entitled to get some sort of assistance as people who are a year or two years older? Natural justice enters into it.
The marriage age is dropping each year.
Is amendment No. 7 withdrawn?
If you withdraw it, I will do what I said I would do.
Can the Minister meet us at 20 years on this?
I do not think it is desirable.
Give us 22 and have another look at it.
The service would be recoverable from 16 onwards, but 22 would be the earliest time for benefit.
We accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19th October, 1967.