Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1977

Vol. 297 No. 5

Protection of Employment Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I welcome the fact that the title of this Bill is the protection of employment. It is an explanatory title to the Bill and, in line with the Bill we have just passed, eliminates the "anti-discrimination" we have been having.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 32, to delete "whom" and substitute "which".

This is to make quite clear that the proposed consultations under section 8 shall take place with representative organisations, trade unions and staff associations rather than with individuals.

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Now that we are making some progress on some of these Bills I ask the Minister to look at all this business about making regulations to amend this or revoke that order and setting them down on the Order Paper. I will come to this again on section 4, which refers to the laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I know that the Minister will say that this has been the procedure in drafting such legislation over the years and that this has been taken from other Bills. I believe the time has come for us to adopt as simple a form of Bill as we can. Bills dealing with worker legislation should be very simple so that the ordinary people on the factory or shop floor or in an industry anywhere can interpret those bills, be able to read them satisfactorily and to decide for themselves their entitlements under those Bills.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

It seems to me that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related to amendment No. 2. I ask the House to agree to discuss amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 21, after "section 3" to insert ", section 6".

The two amendments to this section are related to amendment No. 4. In framing a definition of "establishment" for the purposes of section 6, I was aware that certain problems could arise having regard to the different trading patterns of different business firms. These problems relate mainly to firms in the services sector or to some local authorities where the general nature of employment is highly mobile, with employees moving from job to job. I consider that the definition of "establishment" in section 6 takes account of those exceptional cases as far as we can reasonably do that. In the course of consultations following publication of the Bill it was suggested to me that it would nevertheless be desirable to have some degree of flexibility concerning this definition to provide for as many of the eventualities I have mentioned as possible. I consider that the suggestion has merits and amendment No. 4 will give effect to it. It will be noted from the related amendments, Nos. 2 and 3, that any change in this definition would require the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I have no objection to the amendments. I am not going to argue any more about the powers of the Minister to revoke or amend because it may well be that a member of our party may be over there shortly to make all the necessary amendments. I see no reason to create any divisions on this subject and I am prepared to accept the amendments without question.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, line 28, after "section 3" to insert ", section 6".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Minister may tell me that it is normal practice in legislation of this kind but I should like to draw his attention to section 4 which relates to the laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The section states:

(1) Every order and regulation under this Act (other than an order under section 3 or section 7 (3)) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as possible after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order or regulation is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order or regulation is laid before it, the order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it.

I object to the last phrase in the section. It appears to me that if an order is laid before the House and if a resolution annulling the order or regulation is passed by either House within the next 21 days the regulation is null and void. What I am querying is the wording "...but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it". The wording appears to suggest that if an order which is placed before the House is rejected by the House within the 21 days as null and void then, according to the section, anything done from the time it was placed before the House will appear to be valid. There appears to be some contradiction there. Nothing should be valid under any order until that order is clear and final and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

If the last phrase was not included there could be no certainty of the legal status as set out in the regulations. It is a provision that must be included in any legislation which has to take international obligations into account. That is the main purpose.

Surely there is a contradiction here? Surely nothing can be done under the order until it has been before the Houses of the Oireachtas for 21 days? That must be the right way to do it rather than using a qualifying phrase to which I object.

We are not taking away from the powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas. If the regulations under this section are to have the force of law this provision is essential. I think I am correct in saying that in relation to Bills containing the need to pass regulations this is the standard formulation of the legal status of such regulations. This is the way the status of regulations is put, certainly in relation to any Bills I have been dealing with.

If that is so it has escaped my notice. I do not think it is the right procedure. Irrespective of whatever party are in power, Ministers must be subject to the rules of this House. If a Minister lays an order before the House it is only carrying out an exercise if that order is not absolutely clear. The House has power within 21 sitting days to disapprove of the order but this section apparently states that anything done between the time the Minister makes the order and until the House decides otherwise is valid.

That is the position in relation to any regulation passed here. Of course the House has the right to countermand an order after 21 days but they have legal validity during that period. For example, in the Bill we have just dealt with there is a regulation there which has a similar provision to that contained in section 4 (1). It is true the House can annul the order after 21 days but during that time the regulation has the force of law.

I am certainly learning something new here. I have no legal training but it appears to me there is something radically wrong in such a situation. A remedy should be sought to deal with this matter.

Will the Minister give an example of an order made under section 4 subsection (1) and subsection (2)?

Section 3 deals with international obligations and section 4 deals with regulations necessary under this legislation. Under section 4 the formulation is identical with the form of regulation under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

Subsection (2) is different in relation to the order.

It refers to section 3.

It provides for a draft of the order to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and for a resolution approving of the draft. Therefore a draft has to be approved by the House in relation to an order made under sections 3 or 7. In subsection (1) it has not to be approved by the House before it becomes effective.

The order relates to section 3. The regulation Deputy Fitzgerald is concerned with relates to section 4.

Can the Minister give an example of the two orders? One requires the approval of the House and the other does not.

Section 11 refers to regulations and section 7 (3) refers to what section 4 (2) refers to.

Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, between lines 43 and 44, to add the following paragraph:

"(d) The Minister may, for the purpose of extending the provisions of this section by order amend paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection and may by order amend or revoke such an order."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) For the purpose of this section, `business' includes a trade, industry, profession or undertaking, or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, or by a public or local authority or a Department of State, and the performance of its function by a public or local authority or a Department of State."

The word "business" occurs in section 6, which contains the definition of collective redundancies. The reason for this amendment is that I consider it desirable that the terms should be defined for the general purposes of clarifying the scope of the Bill.

Is the Minister saying that we are including local authorities and Departments of State?

That is a welcome innovation. Their omission would have left a gap in the Bill.

There are still exclusions in section 7. We are trying to define what we wish to have covered under the term "business".

Section 7 is still excluding the civil service.

There are exclusions in section 7.

All the definition does is to include certain people working for State Departments and servants of local authorities.

Are State bodies included? For example, are semi-State bodies included?

They are included.

It is important that public and local authorities are included. It was announced on the radio today that the number of people employed in hospital building has doubled during the last few weeks, from 350 to 700. I do not want to see 700 people employed prior to an election and 550 of them made redundant immediately afterwards. I doubt if they will be kept in employment long enough to be held under the terms of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

It is a pity that this Bill was not introduced sooner. Hopefully, we have passed the worst of our redundancies in industry. Two years ago the European Directive was signed by the Minister for Finance in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers. It has taken until now for this Bill to reach the Committee Stage. We now have certain controls over collective redundancies. If five people in an establishment employing between 20 and 50 are being made redundant, notice must be served 30 days in advance. Section 6 deserves the support of the House. The Minister should ensure that the section is not abused by any section of the community. We hear of takeovers and possible redundancies in the Dublin area.

This is the section that defines the number of employees that make for mass redundancy notices. We must of course be observant as well. One is always thinking of ways around legislation and if there is an establishment employing, say, 50 people and nine people are made redundant within that period, this is a loophole. I would ask the Minister, through the inspectorate and through the Redundancy Section of his Department, to keep an eye on such evasion of the terms of the Bill, because there is a possibility that 12 months later that same procedure would be repeated with nine more. As I said earlier, the vast majority of employers would not consider doing this but we must be wary of anyone who would exploit the situation.

My colleague has dealt with this matter very comprehensively. I would like to express regret at the European orientation of the Bill, which is mainly weighted towards larger industries as such legislation is in European countries. There is a provision in relation to "at least five in an establishment normally employing 20 and less than 50 employees". Our whole system here is geared to small industries. The IDA try to direct attention to small industries. Why does the Minister move away from the thousands of people employed in small industries, industries with less than 20 workers? Surely industries which are State-aided and for which the State has a special scheme should not be ignored by any legislation. Why should one worker not have the same protection as another? It is regrettable that the Minister did not attune this legislation to Irish conditions and Irish problems rather than accept legislation weighted towards a European situation. Probably a small industry in the highly industrialised countries would be one of 20 employees, but that is not so here.

Does the attitude indicated by this legislation mean that in future the IDA in attracting industries will not give support to small industries? The Minister should consider amending the legislation on Report Stage to ensure that the workers to whom I refer are not forgotten. They play the same role in the development of our economy as do the workers in the larger industries. Some of them play an even more important role because they operate in difficult circumstances. Are we to take it that the Government have now written off all small industries? Is it the policy of the Government under this Bill that small industries will not get the aid and support that is provided for industry in legislation?

Any legislation going through this House that disregards the rights of the few, however few they may be, is legislation that is not worthy of this House. The Minister should ensure that no workers are put at a disadvantage because they are in a workshop that employs less than 20 people. Employers in small industries can be just as ruthless as employers in large industries. Again I would ask the Minister to give an undertaking that these people will not be forgotten and that we will not desert any section of workers in any legislation that is brought in for the benefit of those in employment.

This section is very important in that we have all come to recognise that the only sound buffer against unemployment is the number of small industries and small businesses throughout the country. I would agree with Deputy Dowling that we must take a very positive view about our whole dependence on the establishment of multi-nationals in regard to the creation of employment. We know very well that when a cold economic wind blows the people running small industries will not desert the ship and get out, as many of the multi-nationals will do. Therefore we must protect these small companies, recognising that only in the direst circumstances would their employees become redundant.

This legislation affords us an opportunity of stressing again the importance of the small businessman with ten, 20 or 30 employees. The workers in our small industries are probably the best, most dedicated and the most loyal of all the groups. It is our duty to look after those people who in many cases have given the best years of their lives in the service of small industries. I would encourage as far as possible the granting of more and more concessions to the type of businesses we are talking about and ensure that local Irish people can avail of such grants and loan facilities as seem to be afforded to the big multi-national company. If we protect not alone the employee but the type of industry in which he is employed we shall be doing a good service to the whole country.

I would like to reserve the right to move an amendment on Report Stage.

I was hoping the Opposition would co-operate and give us this Bill this evening.

Surely the Minister realises that never has he had so much co-operation as he has been receiving in recent weeks from an Opposition party who are concerned to see this legislation passed but who are concerned also with vetting the legislation carefully. It would be remiss of the Minister, in the light of the improvements already effected, not to allow us that same opportunity so that we might co-operate and, possibly, take Report Stage next week.

The Deputy will appreciate that I accepted the amendments at rather short notice.

I appreciate that.

In relation to the base number can the Minister indicate for how long people must have been in employment because an employer, to suit himself, could decrease the number of employees from, say, 51 to 49 or, as the case might be, he could increase the number? In other words is there a deadline?

Amendment No. 8 meets what the Deputy has in mind. This relates to the calculation in respect of a normal number of employees.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, to delete lines 52 to 55 and substitute the following:

"(b) a person employed by or under the State other than persons standing designated for the time being under section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,".

This is a technical amendment in order to make clear that industrial civil servants are covered by the Bill.

It is changing paragraph (b). Would the Minister elaborate a little more on the wording of this amendment? Am I to take it that the State bodies are included?

And also employees of local authorities and servants of State Departments?

That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) Where a notice of dismissal by reason of redundancy which was given before the commencement of this Act expires after such commencement, sections 8, 9, 11 and 14 shall not apply to the dismissal concerned, but such a notice shall be in accordance with the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and with the relevant contract of employment."

It has been represented to me that provision should be made to eliminate the possibility of an employer, before the commencement date of the Act, giving to his employees redundancy dismissal notices which expire after the Act comes into operation and that he might be forced by the drafting of section 7 (1) to give an additional 30 days' notice and engage in the consultation and notification procedures. This suggestion has some merit.

I take it that the reason for the amendment is, possibly, to ensure that there is proper control, that the Minister is making the amendment for a specific purpose—the avoidance avoiding confusion.

Its only practical significance will be in respect of the first month.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Here, again, I wish to reserve the right to submit amendments on Report Stage if necessary. This area of a specified period of contract is one that I should like to consider very carefully. It might create difficulties in some types of employment that would be different from the normal types of employment and redundancies covered by the Bill.

I am thinking particularly of a building contractor. The building industry fluctuates to a certain extent, seasonally and otherwise. Let us take the case of a building contract which is completed earlier than anticipated. Normally the experience is to the contrary but let us take a situation in which 100 people are working on a building contract for a specified period of two-and-a-half years but if the contract is completed in two years would the 100 people who would be laid off come within the rules of this Bill and within the control of this section? The exclusion of employment under the Merchant Shipping Act is understandable because of certain difficulties. Presumably the people in question in so far as that Act is concerned would be working at sea and away from our country. But if a shipping line lay off 30 people, why should these people not come within the terms of the Bill? I had a difficult case recently of a person who was employed by such a company. The company did not honour their commitments to their employees, either by way of social welfare contributions or anything else. I am reserving the right here, too, to submit amendments on Report Stage.

I am not clear as to what exactly the Deputy has in mind. Is it his contention that the situation should be more explicit in relation to the matter of contracts?

I am concerned about the contract situation in that difficulties may be created in this regard. I have instanced an example of a building contract being completed in less than the time estimated and I have asked what would be the situation in respect of the people who would be laid off.

We could be specific in this regard if desired.

Is that sort of situation covered?

It would be included in the definition of contract of employment by reason of the normal connotation of such definition.

But might it not be covered in certain circumstances, depending on the type of contract?

It is comparable, unfortunately, to many jobs in industry during the past few years. It could not be regarded as not being a contract.

This is something the Minister must look at again. The point I am making is that in relation to building contractors generally there has to be a certain amount of uncertainty regarding a forecast of the time when the contract will be completed This section needs a certain amount of tidying up. If a builder makes a contract for two-and-a-half years but completes the work unexpectedly within two years and he does not have other work for the workers, does he come within the terms of the Act?

It could apply to general building operations. On the other hand if there is a specific contract for a specific task it could come into the non-application area. Does the Deputy want to get an exception for sections of the industry?

No, I want to know what is covered under that section.

Is the Deputy not satisfied that the exclusions mentioned under section 7 are specific enough?

It probably is right to exclude them, but in certain circumstances it may not be. That is my concern. I am assuming that that applies basically to the building and construction industry and contracts of that nature.

It does, but there may be specific tasks.

I was making the point that a contract for two-and-a-half years could be completed within two years because of excellent performance. The contract price for two-and-a-half years remains the same, so that there is a greater profit for the contractor and his staff, because the job was finished six months earlier than anticipated. What is the position in that case?

If the individual in that situation was employed for a specific task it could be held that he is excluded.

I am not anxious that he should be excluded. I know it can balance out, a task can take two-and-a-half or three years.

One must provide for both situations.

I can take it that basically building and construction contracts as such are excluded?

Can the Minister comment on merchant shipping?

They are paid off at the end of each voyage.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 8.

In page 6, before line 20, to insert the following new section:

8. —For the purposes of this Act, the number of employees normally employed in an establishment (within the meaning of section 6) shall be taken to be the average of the number so employed in each of the 12 months preceding the date on which the first dismissal takes effect."

This amendment relates to the calculation of the normal number of employees. Interpretation of the concept of the number of employees normally employed, referred to in sections 6, 7 and 9, could give rise to difficulties. That is the reason for its definition in this section.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, to delete line 44 and substitute the following:

"(b) the number, and descriptions or categories, of employees whom it is proposed to make redundant,".

This relates to the requirement for more precise information to be given about workers selected for redundancy, the number, description and category of employees whom it is proposed to make redundant.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The terminology used in this Bill is certainly the most acceptable of all the measures that we have yet had before us. It is a wonderful move in the right direction and it specifies things very simply and clearly. Section 9 comes across very easily and does away with a lot of the antiquated sort of approach which was used in many of the sections in much of our legislation.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

This section is getting into big money. It states:

Where collective redundancies are effected by an employer before the expiry of the 30-day period mentioned in subsection (1) the employer shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £3,000.

I would have thought that that fine would have been related to the numbers involved. In section 6 different levels and different numbers of employees are mentioned. Twenty people must be employed on an average over the previous 12 months before the company are involved under this Bill by way of collective redundancies. There are four different categories and it is not fair that there should be just a fine of £3,000. It is a matter for the Minister to say whether it should be smaller or greater. If a small firm laying off five in an establishment employing 20 people offends under section 14 they would be fined £3,000. On the other hand, an establishment employing 300 people could lay off 30 people, six times as many, and he will be fined the same £3,000. That fine in justice should be tabled either upwards or downwards. I appreciate what the Minister wants to prevent, but it is not fair that the employer of 300 people should be classed in the same category as the employer of 20 people. For that reason I would ask the Minister to look at this between now and Report Stage and I reserve my right to submit motions on Report Stage.

This legislation will not be an imposition on many employers. As I said earlier, it is only in a minority of cases where redundancies are impending that there are not discussions held between employers and employees, although there have been a minority of unfortunate cases where redundancies did occur without notification to those concerned. It must not be forgotten that this fine is the maximum which can be imposed on indictment. In the number of cases where it goes to the point where employees do not accept or ignore the provisions of this legislation and are subject to fine, it can be realistically anticipated that the fines will not in most cases be anywhere near the maximum set down here. It is as light an obligation for the employer in a small firm to consult with employees beforehand as it is for employers in larger firms. Good human relations with one's employees are as important in small firms as in large ones.

The burden this legislation places on the employer's shoulders is light to the extent that all it seeks from the employer is that he should enter into consultations with those who would be affected by a decision on his part to close a section of the firm or to close the firm down. He should consult with them beforehand, tell them it is happening and see if it can be avoided. It can have the beneficial side effect that the National Manpower Service would know that a redundancy was impending so that if redundancy finally was unavoidable we might be in a position to obtain alternative employment for those affected. Therefore no employer is asked to accept very onerous obligations under this legislation. These provisions are made to improve good relations in industry and are in employers' better interest in the long term. I am convinced that for the minority of employers who might be affected by this legislation the fine mentioned here is not excessive when you recall that it is the maximum figure that could be imposed on an employer.

Has the Minister reserved any rights, or can he, on the 30-day period? I understand that under the EEC Directive there is an opportunity for member states to avail of an extension of the 30-day period to 60 days in the event of there being continued negotiations between trade unions and employers.

We have not put it in here but under European statute we could have done so.

Has he reserved that right by order?

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

This is a tough section complying with some sections in other Bills. It gives very strong rights to persons to go very far with individuals and private persons in people's homes. I quote:

(1) An authorised officer may—

(a) enter at all reasonable times any premises or place where he has reasonable grounds for supposing that any employee is employed,

(b) there make any examination or inquiry necessary for ascertaining whether this Act has been or is being complied with,

(c) require an employer or his representative to produce any records which the employer is required by this Act to keep, and inspect and take copies of entries in the records.

Overall the powers conferred here are too strong, too dangerous to allow to any Minister. I appreciate what the Minister will say: that this is only for people who may be trying to evade the terms of the Bill. However it should be remembered that there may be times when an inspector's suspicions may be entirely unfounded. For that reason I would be very fearful of giving any Minister in any Government the powers that appear to be in this section. He or his officer has full powers such as are issued only under warrant to the Garda in certain cases. Subsection (2) says:

The powers conferred on an authorised officer by subsection (1) (a) shall not be exercisable in respect of a private dwelling-house unless the Minister (or an officer of the Minister appointed by the Minister for the purpose) certifies that he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section in relation to an employee in the house has been committed by the employer,...

Who decides those reasonable grounds? One person's reasonable grounds may not be another person's reasonable grounds. The Minister has a duty to revise this section and to amend it to reduce the strength of it. We are in the habit of giving very strong powers in much of our legislation. To give an officer acting on the Minister's behalf power on "reasonable grounds" of suspicion is too wide open to abuse. For that reason I do not agree with this section as it stands. While I do not intend opposing it on Committee Stage, unless the Minister is prepared to amend it between now and Report Stage I intend submitting amendments then.

The Deputy anticipates, since we have come up against this section in other legislation, what I will be saying. It is a standard provision in legislation of this kind that the officers must have sufficient authority where that is required. We have similar provisions, in the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, and also in an Act of long before that, the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961. It must be remembered that the manner of exercising powers conferred here is subject to scrutiny by the courts when prosecutions are brought before them. In effect nothing sinister is being sought by way of powers under section 17. They are routine powers conferred by legislation of this kind on officers carrying out these duties. They are present in legislation of this kind at least back to 1961 whereas, as I say, the Holidays (Employees) Act has a similar section.

I anticipated the Minister's answer. We have made a lot of progress with these Bills. The phraseology being used is simple and easy to follow. I believe measures like this are Draconian. In fairness to the officials of the Department and other Departments, they have not been abused. In fact, I would say the opposite for the most part. As legislators we should not allow the opportunity to be given to the rare person who may well abuse them. In regulations affecting employers and employees and encouraging good relations between employers and employees, we should not take the old-fashioned view that everyone is suspect until he is proved otherwise. The vast majority of employers and employees are fine upright respectable people. They are good employers and good employees and they have good relations. Let us legislate for the majority and not for the minority who may try to evade legislation. I suggest the Minister should recommend to his people that some amendments should be introduced to this section before Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

I want to make the same comments on this section which is headed, "Proceedings under Act". It relates very closely to section 17. I call for another look at this section. The Minister may say this is the format in which such sections have been introduced over the years. We are trying to provide for good industrial relations. If labour legislation is to help towards them, we should have belief and confidence in the goodness of people. We should believe they do not go out deliberately to outwit the State or its officers, but that the vast majority of people want to co-operate.

It is desirable that we should change this type of section in all our legislation. It may have been traditional. We inherited our law-drafting procedures from another nation and it may be understandable that this type of thing should continue for a certain time. The time has come to break with that tradition and to present a more open and friendly image of the State. I am not saying the officers do not. In fact, they present a friendly image but when you read some legislation, you wonder what kind of so-and-sos they are, what kind of tough men they are who have all these wide powers. We are talking about industrial relations and human relations. Let us set the headline from our Department of Labour. This is a comparatively new Department. It was set up 11 or 12 years ago. It has made a good deal of progress. Now we are moving forward and we want to see new sections and not the tough old-fashioned. Victorian type of section. Let us put in an original section.

I reserve the right to submit amendments to this section. Subsection (3) provides:

Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

The poor devil who was purporting to act in any such capacity could be the office boy and he could be proceeded against. The time has come to redraft this type of section and give it a more humane and reasonable approach.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
Title agreed to.

As early as Deputy Fitzgerald will give it to us. Next Tuesday?

Subject to agreement by the Whips. Over the past few days I have heard so much business ordered for next Tuesday that it would take three-and-a-half days to deal with it. If there is agreement among the Whips I have no objection to taking it next Tuesday.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 8th March, 1977.
Top
Share