Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Feb 1979

Vol. 311 No. 6

Redundancy Payments Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, was not a controversial piece of legislation; nevertheless it was important. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that since the redundancy payments scheme came into operation at the beginning of 1968 over 100,000 workers have benefited from it. That figure gives an idea of the contribution which the scheme has made in promoting the restructuring of industry, in facilitating retraining and re-adaptation, in promoting the climate necessary for change, and in alleviating the anxiety and the hardship which so many would otherwise have had to experience in situations of redundancy.

For the purposes of the scheme there is a fund financed by contributions by employers and workers as part of the general social insurance stamp. Under the scheme a redundant worker with at least two years' service with his employer is assured of a lump sum payment. This is payable by the employer who can then obtain a rebate from the fund varying generally from 55 per cent to 70 per cent. If the worker is unemployed a weekly payment may be paid at the employment exchange. Workers' entitlements are calculated by reference to age, service and pay. The independent Employment Appeals Tribunal determines issues of entitlement. The scheme at its initiation was seen as providing employees with some compensation for the loss of their jobs, recognising the rights built up by workers in their employments. The financial help in the form of lump sums and weekly payments was meant to be of assistance to employees in the period between the loss of one job and the securing of another.

Apart from this, the scheme could be seen as an adjunct to our moves from protection to free trade. The removal of tariff barriers had begun in the early sixties and was greatly extended by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement in the middle of the decade. Membership of the European Communities was also foreseen, with which would come further dismantling of our tariff barriers.

It was realised that some industries would have difficulties in facing increased competition and that a degree of rationalisation involving job changing would be a probable consequence. The 1967 Act was an important response to alleviate the hardship of workers made redundant. The Act was designed to reduce worker resistance to necessary changes in our manpower structure. Other elements of our manpower policy, including the advisory and placement facilities of the National Manpower Service, the resettlement allowance scheme and the training and re-training programmes of AnCO were all available as well to help promote the changes the country needed.

On reviewing the legislation, I have had regard to these factors as well as to developments since the scheme began. I have also taken into account criticisms, representations and suggestions received. There have been detailed discussions with both employer and worker representative bodies. The proposals in the Bill which is now before the House are based on the premise that the redundancy payments scheme should continue and that it be developed as a component of manpower policy.

All parties were agreed that the scheme needed to be significantly recast. The general improvement in the level of social welfare benefits, and especially the introduction of pay-related benefit, raised the question of the continuing need for redundancy weekly payments. These are paid in conjunction with unemployment benefit and pay related benefit but normally subject to the rule whereby the aggregate weekly amount does not exceed 85 per cent of pre-unemployment average net weekly earnings or £50, whichever is the least. This 85 per cent rule has meant that since its introduction in 1976 redundancy weekly payments have been curtailed in many instances. In fact, there are cases where redundant workers have ceased to become entitled to any weekly payments.

A comprehensive study of the redundancy payments scheme published in 1977 under the auspices of the Economic and Social Research Institute concluded that the weekly payments, being an income maintenance feature of the scheme, should be discontinued, income maintenance being more appropriate to the social welfare system.

My own examination of the scheme has led me to the same conclusion. One of the main provisions of the Bill is, therefore, to discontinue weekly payments. It is proposed, however, that persons currently in receipt of redundancy weekly payments at the point when they are abolished that is 6 April 1979, will continue to receive their entitlements until they are exhausted or cease for other reasons.

Weekly payments have always been associated, particularly by the trade unions, with the workers' contributions. This probably results from a comparison with the British scheme which has no weekly payments or workers' contributions. I consider it appropriate, therefore, that as weekly payments are to be discontinued, so too should the workers' contribution. A proposal is accordingly included in the Bill to abolish the workers' redundancy contribution from 6 April 1979. The redundancy payments fund will be financed henceforth, it is proposed, entirely by employers' contributions.

It is further proposed that these employer redundancy contributions should, as with social welfare contributions in general, be pay-related. They will be collected as part of the general social insurance contribution and be levied on earnings up to the same ceiling as for social insurance purposes. The figure specified in the Social Welfare Act, 1978, is £5,000 but provision is made in the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1978, to update this figure by means of regulations which are to be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance: a draft of any such proposed regulations must come before each House of the Oireachtas for approval. I do not think it is necessary for me to outline the advantages of a system of contributions related to pay. Deputies will recall that during the passage of the Social Welfare Bill last year the House discussed the conversion from flat rate to pay related contributions. I would just like to say that a pay related basis is all the more appropriate for redundancy contributions since the workers' lump sums and hence the employers' rebate entitlements will be pay-related.

I am proposing that the rate of the redundancy contribution be set at 0.5% per cent of reckonable earnings. It is estimated that this will give the redundancy fund an income of about £9 million in the year commencing 6 April 1979 which I expect will keep the fund in credit at least up until the end of the first year of operation of the revised scheme when it is my intention to review the situation, including the adequacy of the contribution rate, in the light of the experience in the meantime.

I am also proposing to raise the statutory ceiling on lump sums. The ceiling for calculating lump sums is at present £2,500 and I propose to double this figure. This would give a best possible lump sum of £4,087 when the revised scheme comes into operation as against £2,043 now. Assuming the upper age limit for qualifying is dropped to 66 after the first year of operation of the scheme this figure will, of course be somewhat reduced—to £3,702, in fact. I will come to this reduction in the qualifying age later.

An unsatisfactory characteristic of our redundancy payments scheme as it has developed over the years is its complexity. I am sure this observation will not be lost on Deputies who have had to understand how the scheme works. An important objective in my review of the scheme was, therefore, to simplify it to the greatest extent possible so that it is more easily understandable to those who have to do so. Indeed the amendments I have already indicated, though not proposed for simplicity sake, will mean a much less complicated scheme.

The rebate system as it now exists is particularly complex. At present an employer is entitled to a 55 per cent rebate if he gives the requisite two weeks' notice, with an extra 2½ per cent for each week of extra notice up to a maximum of eight weeks or 70 per cent. Further, in the case of employees with over 20 years' service, that part of the employees' service over 20 years is rebated at 100 per cent. Where two weeks' notice was not given, the rebate could be reduced to 45 per cent.

This complicated rebate system was designed to encourage employers to give additional notice to workers so that they might make arrangements about further employment and also to provide advance information on impending redundancies to the State agencies concerned so that they might be better able to carry out their functions in relation to the redundant workers. I refer in particular to the placement function of the National Manpower Service and to AnCO. Since the enactment of these rebate provisions there have been other developments which ensure that these objectives are more effectively achieved than through the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and the Protection of Employment Act, 1977, make provision in regard to the giving of notice. The National Manpower Service and AnCO and their offices throughout the country concern themselves with the placement and training of redundant employees whenever possible.

I am proposing therefore to confine the notice provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts to simply two weeks, which is adequate for the administration of the scheme, and at the same time I am proposing a uniform level of rebates set at 60 per cent, which is just below the average rate of rebate up to now. I might point out that this is a rate which is fairly high, especially when compared with the UK's current 41 per cent. For failure to comply with the minimum of two weeks' notice, a provision is included whereby the rate of rebate may be reduced from 60 per cent to 40 per cent. I am further proposing that the Minister for Labour should have power to vary these rates of rebate by regulation, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance and possible annulment by either the Dáil or Seanad.

When the 1967 Act was enacted the old age pension age was 70 years. This continues to be the age up to which a person can qualify for redundancy payments, as it was brought down with the old age pension age. I feel the upper limit for redundancy payment entitlement should be set at old age pension age and accordingly a provision to that effect is included in the Bill. I am however aware that a sudden drop could disentitle many people, both employers and workers, with reasonable expectations in this respect in the event of redundancies. It is proposed therefore that the drop should not occur until one year after the other provisions in the Bill come into operation, that is, from 6 April, 1980.

In 1967, when the scheme was established, the normal working week was 42 hours and the number of hours in a week which a worker was normally expected to work in order to qualify under the scheme was set at half that number, that is, 21. The reasoning behind this is that the scheme should cover employments from which employees are deriving the main source of income and should not extend to subsidiary jobs. I am proposing that, since the normal working week is now 40 hours, the number of hours needed to qualify be reduced to 20.

One of the problems faced by an employee who is under notice of redundancy is the need to get another job. While most employers would in the circumstances allow employees reasonable time off to look for work or arrange for training, I feel this is something which should be given to employees as of right. I have accordingly included a provision in the Bill to this effect. To safeguard against abuses, employers may require the employee to give reasonable evidence of appointments in this regard.

As regards the Employment Appeals Tribunal, you may well be aware of delays in hearing resulting from a backlog of cases. This is largely due to the increased work-load imposed on the tribunal by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. I have been conscious of this problem for some time and I am proposing in the Bill that the membership of the Tribunal be considerably expanded. Provision is made to permit the appointment of five vice-chairmen instead of three and of 30 ordinary members instead of 24. I have also provided that should the work-load of the tribunal warrant it, additional appointments may be made for the speedy despatch of business.

I now come to the remaining amendments to the Acts which affect details of eligibility and the administration of the scheme. The first of these amendments is to the effect that an employee shall not lose previous service in the case of reinstatement or re-employment under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

A further amendment concerns the concept of "obligatory period". In the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, the "obligatory period" was devised as some protection to employers in cases where redundant employees wished to leave before the period of employers' notice expired. It means the period of notice to which an employee is entitled either under the contract of employment or statute. Where the employer gives longer notice the "obligatory period" of that longer notice is the period which expires at the time when the employer's notice expires. An employee wishing to leave before expiration of employer's notice and remain entitled to redundancy payments can do so only by giving, within the obligatory period, written notice of intention to leave, and with the employer's consent. When an employer objects the Employment Appeals Tribunal can decide the issue.

This provision can operate unsatisfactorily. For example, the employee might obtain an offer of other employment conditional on his taking up the job without delay, but if the employee leaves before the obligatory period he loses redundancy entitlement, and if the employer nevertheless pays, he loses entitlement to rebate. I am therefore proposing that the parties may by agreement bring forward the termination date of employer's notice so that the employee's notice may be within the obligatory period.

The time limit for claiming a redundancy payment is 52 weeks which the Employment Appeals Tribunal may extend to 104 weeks. It could happen that an employee could become redundant, and entitled to redundancy payment—having been technically dismissed by one employer and employed by another—without his learning of the fact before the 104 week limit had expired. This would be because of the failure of an employer to give notice or a redundancy certificate. I am proposing to empower the tribunal at their discretion to extend the time for claiming in such circumstances.

The next provisions I want to refer to concern a worker's entitlement to claim redundancy in the event of being on short time. In order to explain, I refer first to the position in relation to lay-off. At present the legislation provides that where an employee's employment ceases by reason of his employer's being unable to provide the work for which the employee was employed to do and it is reasonable in the circumstances for that employer to believe that the cessation of employment will not be permanent and where the employer gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the cessation, that cessation of employment shall be regarded for the purpose of the redundancy payments scheme as lay-off. The reasonableness or otherwise of the employer's belief that the cessation of employment will not be permanent is subject to scrutiny of the tribunal, which have regard to all the circumstances in deciding whether employer's belief was reasonable or whether the purported lay-off in fact amounted to a constructive dismissal. In the case of short-time, however, the tribunal are precluded from investigating the matter because of the absence of any provision as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the employer's belief that short time will not be permanent. I propose therefore to include a provision which will subject short-time to the same tests as lay-off.

In another respect, too, the existing provision in relation to short-time is rather unsatisfactory. A worker can claim redundancy if he is put on short-time, which is for this purpose defined as less than half his normal weekly hours or for which he receives less than half his normal weekly remuneration and where such short-time continues for specified periods. Where the short-time working leaves the worker with half his normal hours or normal pay or more, he may still be able to claim redundancy on the grounds that his former job has ceased and the new job does not constitute an offer of suitable employment which would disentitle him to redundancy payments. But, in the latter case, that is where the reduction in hours or pay is not more than one half, the worker would have to refuse the new working conditions immediately or carry them out for not more than four weeks.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal which decides these issues has intimated that on the basis of counsel's opinion it feels constrained to decide in such circumstances that the worker who has worked the new situation for four weeks or more has accepted revised terms and conditions and is not therefore entitled to claim redundancy. It is felt that the legislation should not discourage the acceptance of reasonable short-time working whenever appropriate, and should not encourage workers to claim redundancy by virtue of part-time working which is not a particularly severe reduction. Therefore the Bill provides that in such circumstances dismissal for redundancy may be deemed to have occurred notwithstanding that the person has accepted reduced hours and/or pay for not more than 52 weeks, that is, he shall not for that reason alone lose redundancy entitlement.

Under the 1967 Redundancy Payments Act, the rules governing continuous employment lay down that employment shall be taken to be continuous unless terminated by dismissal or by the employees voluntarily leaving the employment. It is nevertheless also provided that continuity of employment is preserved in certain circumstances and subject to defined time limits where employment is resumed with the same employer whether or not notice of termination of employment had been given. Childbirth or maternity is not actually specified in this respect but, where an absence of up to 26 weeks for any cause is authorised by the employer, continuity of employment is preserved if the employee had been dismissed within such 26-week period but was later re-employed. I am providing in the Bill that an absence for childbirth for a period not exceeding 13 weeks should not break continuity of a woman's employment, even if the absence was not authorised, that is, had not the prior agreement of the employer, provided there is a resumption of work.

Section 39 of the 1967 Act provides that notices of appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal must be sent to the Minister for Labour. Appeals under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 go directly to the tribunal. As there is no necessity for appeals under the Redundancy Payments Acts to be channeled through the Minister, the Bill includes a provision that such appeals should go direct to the tribunal.

Under the coming pay-related system of contributions the rate of redundancy contribution should not have to be changed from time to time simply because of the declining value of money since it is set at a percentage of reckonable earnings. It is being proposed that the ceiling to reckonable earnings will change automatically whenever it is changed for the social insurance contributions. Nevertheless, it may be necessary to change the rate by reference to the varying requirements of the Redundancy Fund, and as the redundancy contribution will be collected under the PAYE system along with the social insurance contribution, any change can only be made with effect from the beginning of a tax year and must be determined in good time. The yield required will depend primarily on the incidence of redundancies, and also on the age and service pattern of the redundant persons with due regard to the reserve in the fund. The Minister for Labour, as manager of the fund, should be in a position to act quickly to keep the income and expenditure of the fund in a proper relationship, without, if possible, having to borrow from the Exchequer. Therefore the Bill includes a provision for the variation of the rate of contribution by regulation subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance, with a proviso that every such regulation shall be laid before each House and if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed the regulation shall be annulled accordingly. I have already drawn attention to the provision for the variation by regulation of the rate of rebate.

The method of calculating the amount of lump sum is set out in Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as amended; it also sets out the rules governing normal weekly remuneration by reference to which the lump sum is calculated. Briefly this is a half week's pay for each year of continuous employment between the ages of 16 and 41, and a week's pay for each year over the age of 41 plus one week's pay, pay in excess of £48.08 per week being disregarded. I am proposing that power should be given to the Minister for Labour to vary the basis of calculation of lump sums by regulation but, as with respect to the power to vary the rates of contribution and rebates, this would be subject also to the sanction of the Minister for Finance and possible annulment by either House of the Oireachtas. Similarly the Bill enables revision of the ceiling to gross normal remuneration by Regulation so that, with the minimum of procedural difficulty, this ceiling may be adjusted as may be appropriate.

If an employer refuses or fails to pay a worker his statutory lump sum entitlement the Minister is required to pay the lump sum out of the fund whereupon all rights and remedies of the employee with respect to the lump sum are transferred to and become vested in the Minister. The Minister, in cases of insolvency, is then entitled to claim, in the bankruptcy arrangement, administration of the insolvent estate or winding-up, the amount paid less the amount of rebate which would have been payable. A provision that in winding-up and bankruptcy circumstances the Minister's claim should rank as a priority debt, apart from helping to preserve the solvency of the fund, should, it is felt, reduce the incidence of direct payments from the fund in that the lump sum entitlements would in fact more often be paid along with wages due, and it would also thereby cut out or reduce the delay in workers getting their payments. Accordingly, I propose to cover this in the Bill.

Finally, the penalties provided for in the 1967 Act have not been updated and the Bill raises these penalties. In addition the Bill contains the standard provisions covering citations, construction and commencement and for removal by regulation of any difficulties that may arise in bringing the revised legislation into operation.

In view of the way in which this Bill had to be drafted I directed that the Explanatory Memorandum should set out as clearly as possible the various changes proposed. I might add that it is my intention to have a guide-book prepared on the amended scheme when this Bill has been enacted.

In conclusion, I believe that the proposals in the Bill are worthwhile and useful and I hope that all Deputies can support them.

Any speech by a Minister or by the main spokesman of a party dealing with redundancy payments cannot be complete without an examination of the whole question of redundancy and its impact on the central economic problem facing the country, unemployment. I have to chide the Minister for having the gall to come into the House and speak with a text prepared by his civil servants and not once refer to the massive problem of redundancy which has jeopardised our employment creation. I want to deal with the question of redundancy before I come to the general provisions of the Bill. Some Ministers have told us that last year there were 13,000 redundancies, I understand there are no official statistics yet. I understand that the figure for the previous year was just below and that for the year before about the same.

The figure for last year was less than 10,000 and it is on the record of the House.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development have said 13,000.

Will the Deputy check the record of the House?

The Taoiseach and the Minister have said 13,000.

A net gain of 17,000.

The number of jobs created was 30,000, 13,000 redundancies, a net gain of 17,000.

(Interruptions.)

We are dealing with a Bill here. We are not dealing with numbers or redundancies. We are dealing with provisions for redundancy in this Bill and we will not get into numbers. Deputy Mitchell on the provisions of the Bill before the House.

I will keep within the provisions of this Bill and I will relate them to the redundancy problem and the misleading figures the Government are again using.

The Chair will not allow that. The Chair has no intention of allowing that type of debate. The Deputy can do that next Thursday on the budget debate.

I have no wish to fall out with the Chair. I will speak to this Bill whether or not the Chair likes it.

The Deputy will abide by the rules of the Chair and he will deal with the provisions of the Bill. That is the ruling of the House down through the years.

The Minister has made his prepared speech uninterrupted and I hope that Deputies on this side of the House will have the same facility from all sides of the House including the Chair. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development have told us that the figure for redundancies last year was 13,000. Other Ministers have also quoted that figure. If the Minister likes I will get the references for him. We have been told that 30,000 jobs were created last year.

The Chair will not allow the Deputy to continue on those lines. That may be appropriate to the budget debate but not to this debate. We are dealing with the financial provisions for redundancy in this Bill. The Deputy will keep to that.

I am coming to the question of redundancy and the effect of the previous Redundancy Payments Acts and the possible effect of this Redundancy Payments Bill. I am chiding the Minister for not even referring to the question of redundancy and the impact of previous legislation. We have been told that the figure for redundancies last year was 13,000 and the net increase in employment was 17,000, giving a gross increase in employment of 30,000. We are now told that the redundancies figure for last year was 10,000. I do not know which Minister to believe. That is not material.

It is not relevant.

It is relevant.

It is not relevant to the Bill before the House.

Perhaps you would let me develop the point and you would see the relevance of it. The Minister said in the first paragraph of his speech:

Its importance is highlighted by the fact that since the redundancy payments scheme came into operation at the beginning of 1968 over 100,000 workers have benefited from it. That figure gives an idea of the contribution which the scheme has made in promoting the restructuring of industry, in facilitating re-training and re-adaptation, in promoting the climate necessary for change, and in alleviating the anxiety and the hardship which so many would otherwise have had to experience in situations of redundancy.

All Deputies on this side of the House fully support that. Have the State given enough thought to the general impact of the Redundancy Payments Acts on employment? I know many workers who have been tempted and have taken the lump sum, which is very attractive to them to solve their transient financial difficulties, who find themselves about nine months later without anything, looking for employment. As well as that the jobs they left, where machines were installed, were much more productive than a lot of the jobs we are now creating.

We have got to look at redundancy legislation in that light. The Minister was right in what he said in the first paragraph of his speech. We have to provide for the restructuring of industry, we have to facilitate retraining and readaption and we have to promote the climate necessary for change. We have to alleviate the anxiety and the hardship but we have also got to protect employment which is more meaningful than a lot of the "make work" jobs, the wealth-consuming jobs, we are creating today. The Minister and the Government should look at that aspect of the problem. How can we provide for that situation? Instead of favouring capital against labour, which is a by-product of our current redundancy legislation, should we not see if we can provide for the restructuring of industry and the necessary climate for change and at the same time protect productive jobs? It would be much better if the redundancy fund was called perhaps the Job Maintenance Fund. Part of that fund could be used to maintain threatened jobs. Long before I was ever in this House I worried about the impact of redundancy legislation. We all know that the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, and this Bill are, in general, necessary and worthy; but this Bill gives undue attention to the aspect to which I have referred.

Before I pass on to the provisions of the Bill I would like to come back to the jobs lost last year——

The Deputy should keep to the provisions of the Bill.

Could you tell me, A Cheann Comhairle, where I have departed from them?

The Deputy has just suggested departing from them.

Payments were made last year under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. Some Ministers say 13,000 and others say 10,300. It does not matter how many; it is not central to the argument I am going to make. The fact is that several thousand jobs were lost last year. It may be as many as 13,000, if we are to believe the Taoiseach. Would the Minister for Labour institute an examination to see how many of those jobs could have been saved and how many of them should have been saved? How many of these people have been replaced by machinery, because of our bad industrial relations situation? How many of these jobs have been lost because of the payroll tax effect of all social insurance, including redundancy repayments? How many of those jobs were more worthy than the other so-called jobs created under the environment improvement scheme, the employment action team programme, the community youth training programme and all these short and temporary schemes. When it comes to Committee Stage I hope to be proposing amendments to the Bill which may provide for this sort of situation.

This does not pertain to the question we are discussing.

If we pass this Bill unamended we may be overlooking a major aspect of the problem of redundancy. I plead with the Minister to address himself to the problem of redundancy, which he has not even referred to in this 18-page speech.

It would not be in order for the Minister to refer to it.

I would ask the Minister to address himself in his reply to the problem of redundancy. I would ask him especially to institute some sort of examination into what happened to those jobs last year, what sort of jobs they were and why they were lost.

I have said, both inside and outside this House, on many occasions that one of the chronic problems facing this country is not just one of unemployment but one of under-employment. So long as our redundancy legislation makes it easy for workers to accept lump sums and so long as we have such gross under-employment we will have severe redundanices and our employment creation efforts will be badly reversed. The Minister has given no indication that he has any grasp of that fact. The NESC report No. 35 shows that our manufacturing industry produces just over half per man what industry in the Benelux countries and Denmark produce. In other words, by their standards we could do with exactly half our industrial work force. The comparison with Germany is even worse. That is the extent of under-employment here. That is the slack that has yet to be taken up so long as redundancy legislation ignores the problem—and this Bill does ignore the problem.

The question of redundancy cannot be divorced from unemployment. I will only refer to unemployment in passing because that is a separate debate. Our problem of unemployment is greatly worsened by under-employment, which is very seldom talked about. So long as we keep making up so-called jobs lasting for six weeks and so long as we keep deluding ourselves by making up jobs like those under the environmental improvement scheme, we are hiding the true nature of the problem. We are "conning" ourselves; we are preventing ourselves and our people from facing up to the necessary solutions to this problem, and this Bill will not help that situation.

Before I read the Minister's speech I had prepared some comments, but I had to say what I have said because his speech was so disappointing. It is fair to say that, in so far as this Bill amends and improves the present redundancy structure, it is generally welcome. That does not mean that we on this side of the House will not criticise some of its provisions. I have already said that social insurance, of which redundancy repayments have now become an incorporated part, constitute, like health payments, a payroll tax. In other words, for every employee employed an employer has to pay into the Exchequer or the social insurance fund or the redundancy repayments fund. He has to pay a tax on each employee. I made the same remarks in relation to the Health Contributions Bill which was before the House today.

We have to look at that policy. I readily admit that there is no easy answer to the question of where to find the funds to replace social insurance, but so long as we tax employers for employing people we are asking for trouble. We are further inhibiting the employment of labour as opposed to the employment of capital. That does not make sense in our national situation. I have already asked the Minister for Health and Social Welfare and I ask the Minister for Labour also to look at that situation to see if there is some alternative. Perhaps we cannot phase it out altogether but perhaps we could phase out gradually the social insurance liabilities of employers, but unfortunately the provision in the Bill to transfer all payments, which are doubled, to employers does not make sense in our conditions.

I acknowledge that the Minister had to do away with the employee's contribution because he is doing away with the weekly redundancy payments, but it is folly to pass all these things on to the employer. Perhaps the whole lot does not amount to very much, something like £25 a year, but when it has been added to pay-related social insurance and health insurance contributions it becomes a lot. Indeed it is another reason do disemploy people.

I am afraid the redundancy lump sum will be a pitfall as far as some employees are concerned. In my constituency, which is totally working class, I come across the problem where workers are tempted by the lump sum to accept redundancy. I would not go so far as to say that they conspire at redundancy, but the temptation of the lump sum weakens their resistence to redundancy—indeed in some cases it increases the likelihood of redundancies. I therefore repeat my request to the Minister to examine the situation to see if this temptation could be reduced but at the same time making genuine provision for people who become unavoidably redundant.

In present circumstances I welcome the Bill in general. I have criticised the added burden being placed on employers, this further addition to what in effect is a payroll tax. I welcome very much the provision establishing workers' rights to reasonable time off to look for work or training during the two weeks redundancy notice period. That is a good provision but I wonder if two weeks is long enough. Are there problems in the way of extending it to four weeks or six weeks? I do not see why people in those extraordinary circumstances cannot be given more than two weeks, although I regard the provision in general as being a good move. The Minister apparently anticipates problems with it, but with trial and error it can be improved.

I also welcome the provision for increasing the membership of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. On the other hand, the Bill gives the tribunal extra work and I wonder if, even with the increased membership, they will be able to react quickly enough. They will have to decide, for instance, whether an employee bona fide is seeking time off to look for alternative work. The tribunal members might be needed to make themselves available throughout the night. However, the provision is a good one and I hope the Department will appreciate the need for speedy examination of applications.

As I have said, I am not satisfied that the weekly redundancy payments should have been abolished. I accept that already, because of the £50 or 85 per cent limit, many workers might not in any case draw weekly payments. However, there are many who do and who would in the future if given the opportunity and I suggest that we should make some short-term provision to ease the blow of redundancy. I agree that the abolition in general is not a bad thing but I suggest that arrangements should be available whereby the blow would be eased for a period of six or seven weeks.

I shall refer briefly to section 6. The Minister may reduce to 45 per cent the rebate paid to employers if two week's notice of redundancy has not been given.

I am wondering if this entire matter does not require closer examination. The provisions of the previous Redundancy Act had been affected by the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Act dealing with minimum notice. In the Ferenka situation the terms of the minimum notice legislation were not complied with and I am far from convinced that a sufficient penalty was imposed in that situation. I wonder why we should pay any rebate in cases where employers do not abide by earlier legislation. When there is failure to give two weeks' notice I suggest we should not give any rebate. Why should an employer who breaks the law get away? I do not think this Bill provides sufficient sanction to ensure that employers will abide by the law in this respect.

It is proposed in several parts of the Bill to give the Minister power to make regulations. These regulations would be brought before the House and would be subject to annulment by the House within 21 days. I am opposing that sort of provision. Recently we had here the unsavoury experience whereby the annulment motions on food subsidies were not allowed to be discussed although the Opposition had requested a debate on the matter. It is not good enough that motions are debated only when it suits the Government to have them debated. Before any regulation of the kind envisaged in this Bill would come into operation I would seek a positive vote of the House, because that is the only way to uphold the rights of Parliament. Unfortunately, Parliament is being subverted by tactics which are within the bounds of order. In regard to this Bill I shall be opposing each section which allows for a negative vote if such is sought.

I note that the Bill takes into account the reduction in the old age pension qualifying age from 70 to 66 and it is proposed that the provisions for those who are 66 are precisely the same as the provisions currently applicable to those who are 70. In other words, if one becomes redundant at 69 one qualifies for a lump sum payment but if one is 70 one will not get any such payment. That is an unfair provision. Any such sharp chopping off must be unfair and unjust. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister consider some method whereby there would be a phasing out so that at, say, 66 a person would qualify for three-quarters of the payments and at 67 for 50 per cent. I am merely using those figures to illustrate what I have in mind, but such a system would be more tolerable and just. It seems very wrong that a man who is perhaps 65 years and nine months qualifies for a redundancy lump sum payment but does not qualify for any payment if he is 66 years and a day.

So far as I know there is not in the Bill any provision to amend the situation in the event of the old age pension qualifying age being reduced. I note that the Government have not made any move in that regard, but hopefully they have not excluded the possibility of reducing the age to 65 or perhaps lower during the remainder of their term in office. Such a move this year would have been a major contribution in the area of work-sharing proposals. Perhaps the Minister would provide a positive approval by the Dáil for regulations to take account of any reduction in the old age pension qualifying age, thereby eliminating the need for further legislation in that regard.

I regret having to be sharply critical of the Minister but, unfortunately, he has not being doing his work. It is difficult to understand a Minister for Labour introducing a Bill to deal with redundancy payments without referring to the problem of redundancy and without making some appeal to both employers and workers not to usè either this legislation or previous legislation unless it is absolutely necessary.

However, I welcome the general provisions of the Bill as far as it goes. On Committee Stage I shall be proposing amendments on the lines I have indicated. There will be even more amendments from us, although not perhaps of as significant a nature as those I have outlined.

I, too, welcome this Bill because it is legislation that is long overdue, but that is not to say that I am necessarily satisfied with every aspect of the Bill. Although the Bill is extensive it seems to lack any indication of concern for unfortunate workers who are displaced from their jobs. I welcome the efforts of those in authority who are emphasising the need for job creation and for programmes in this respect. We are living in difficult times. We have a serious problem in respect of employment for our young people. I accept that there must be a substantial national investment to ensure that we build a society which will meet the needs not only of today's young people but of generations to come. In these days of tremendous challenge we must do everything possible to give all our people a stake in this country. It may be necessary sometimes to be over ambitious in talking of job targets and so on, but although there are times when the projected figures seem unattainable we must aim at the highest figures possible.

We must not overlook the fact that our industrial revolution brings in its wake the scourge of redundancy. Job losses are estimated at about 13,000 per year. It is not my intention to become involved in arguments about how many jobs have been created or how many have been lost: so many different figures have been put before us that it would be impossible to follow the trend.

The matter that concerns me most—and it is one that should concern everybody in authority—is this: what is wrong with our traditional industries which have been based on national resources and which have been so viable for the past 40 years? They are in serious difficulties at present. Optimistic forecasts are not being given of their future prospects. I agree with the previous speaker that there is need for an in-depth study of the sound, basic traditional industries that have been the foundation of our industrial wing.

In speaking of traditional industries I am concerned with the workers, many of whom I know. There are men of 50 years of age who started work as young apprentices and who now find that, after 30 years' service, neither they nor the industry know where they are going. Unfortunately this is an age bracket which is most seriously hit in redundancies and it is difficult to retrain such people or resettle them in other employment. What have our traditional industries been replaced by? I appreciate the efforts of the semi-State bodies involved to create employment but many jobs which have been created in the recent past will not last as long as the traditional ones. I cannot over-emphasise the contributions that were made by these unfortunate men who find themselves in a position where their concern for their families and their future is being met by a redundancy payments Bill. That is not showing sufficient concern. These people accepted the challenge of industrialising our country in our early years. They contributed in a big way, at times with very inadequate and poor machinery, to the creation of the industrial wing of our economy. They accomplished this through dedication, efficiency and a nationalism of a standard that we can be proud of. Unfortunately, the story does not end on a happy note for these people.

The sections of this Bill are poor consolation for a man who, after 30 years' service, is told: "We may have work for you in six months' time". I have heard many stories from these people. Some have been told: "We do not need you any more. We have this wonderful new machine". It is a question of more profits, less hands. Others have been told: "We are sorry we have not got a job for you. You are entitled to some redundancy. We cannot compete with Taiwan or Hong Kong". The most amazing story of all, which got tremendous national publicity, was that of the Gorey leather workers who were told by management: "We are sorry but we want to close down". How can workers appreciate what we are trying to do for them through this kind of legislation when there is that type of management in control of industry? That is why I ask what has gone wrong with our traditional industries.

There are many reasons for the redundancy cancer we are suffering from at present. Each year new industries brought in by the IDA are replacing the older types. I hope the replacing industries will give the same service to the workers and to the people as the traditional ones which, through our entry into the EEC and free trade, have gone to the wall. There is more to this Bill than payments. There is more to this problem than talking about conditions, contributions and so on. We are talking about men and women who are being told that they are not wanted any more. It is a very human and sorrowful picture to be depicting: it is about people and not subsections. I am concerned for these people and, like the previous speaker, I have my doubts about many of the new types of jobs. We are facing the eighties with a colosal youth population and what is done now must be done right.

These redundant workers have given the best part of their lives to a particular industry and, because of their age, a closure means the end of the road for work for them. This Bill is not doing enough for these people, who through no fault of their own and despite dedicated and long years of service, have lost their permanency in the work force. The Government and industry have a definite responsibility in this. Every effort must be made to cushion them. When a person reaches the age of 50 he is at a very difficult time in life. No matter how responsible a person is, many industries consider him too old at 50 years of age. To be considered old at 50 years of age is a condemnation of the system and of the industrial progress which is alleged to have been made throughout the world.

While welcoming the introduction of this legislation, I am concerned that the Minister has not used the opportunity to amend other provisions of the redundancy payments scheme. He should have broadened the scope of the legislation. In the Bill it is proposed to reduce from 21 to 20 the number of hours to be normally worked in a week to qualify for redundancy payments. The 21 hours should be reduced to 16 hours per week. For redundancy purposes this would cover people such as cleaners in vocational schools, bus drivers and many short-term workers. Under this legislation, to qualify for redundancy payments a worker must be employed by the same employer for a period of 104 weeks. This period should be reduced to 52 weeks. This would allow for greater mobility of workers and would cover a large number of workers in the clothing, footwear and construction industries.

My views on this issue are supported by the ESRI Report on Redundancy and Re-employment in Ireland published in September 1977. One of the major reforms proposed in that report is that thought should be given to providing some protection for workers whose occupations are characterised by very intermittent employment and who, although they experience frequent spells of unemployment, may never qualify for redundancy payments. It has long been recognised that workers have what are known as property rights arising from their jobs. If a worker loses these property rights, he is entitled to adequate compensation from his employer. A worker is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payable by his employer and I recognise that the Bill increases the lump sum payable.

The earnings ceiling of £5,000 per annum for calculation of the lump sum and for payment of contribution is far too low. The figure of £5,000 is little more than the average male industrial earnings. I suppose the Minister will tell us it is remarkable that the ceiling of £5,000 is the same as the figure for the social welfare pay-related contributions and health services. That does not mean I accept that figure either as introduced by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare. It is still too low.

The method of calculation of lump sum payments should have been improved to bring our legislation into line with the redundancy payments scheme in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. While I welcome the Bill, I will be putting down a number of important amendments on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will consider them constructively so that we can produce the best possible redundancy payments scheme for all workers. I will have more to say on Committee Stage.

In welcoming this Bill I appreciate, as other Members of the House must, that it is introduced after almost 12 years' experience of the existing scheme. It is very important to underline some comments made by other speakers about the terrible trauma of long time employees who suddenly find themselves redundant either because of competition from other countries or because of rationalisation which can cause unfortunate closures. It is our duty and our obligation to cushion workers as best we can by increasing the various sums payable and by extending the time limits during which payments can be applied for.

The Minister said:

If the worker is unemployed a weekly payment may be paid at the employment exchange. Workers' entitlements are calculated by reference to age, service and pay. The independent Employment Appeals Tribunal determines issues of entitlement.

Many employees who find themselves redundant need not necessarily be close to retirement age. On reaching the age of 40 years and becoming redundant a man may find how difficult it is to become re-employed. This is where the placement agencies can play a most important part in ensuring that men are redundant for as short a time as possible.

The House must agree that there has been a tremendous improvement in workers' conditions since this principle was first introduced in 1967. This has been most beneficial when one considers the serious recession we went through during the oil crisis. Many people lost their jobs when high unemployment followed high inflation in the 1973, 1974 and 1975 period. We know the hardships suffered by men in what appeared to be secure employment who found themselves unemployed. The Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, has stood up very well to the test of time. With the experience of the past few years to go on, one must compliment the Minister on the speed at which he is bringing in this new Bill to cover the anomalies in the original Act. It is a very fine Bill.

The Minister said redundancy weekly payments are normally subject to the rule whereby aggregate weekly amount does not exceed 85 per cent of pre-unemployment average net weekly earnings or £50, whichever is the least. He said:

This 85 per cent rule has meant that since its introduction in 1976 redundancy weekly payments have been curtailed in many instances. In fact, there are cases where redundant workers have ceased to become entitled to any weekly payments.

This Bill seeks to take care of these problems. The weekly payments system and the worker's contribution are to be discontinued. That is to be welcomed. The trade unions will welcome the dropping of the weekly payment, or the worker's contribution as it is known. The fact that the redundancy payments fund will be financed from the employer's contribution is welcomed as is the making of the employer's redundancy contribution pay-related. Putting them under one heading is a sensible arrangement.

The Minister should consider the case of the self-employed who do not qualify for redundancy payments. They should be catered for by being allowed to pay for stamps on a voluntary basis. Many owners of small businesses are struggling to pay their way on low incomes. If the business of a self-employed barber or hairdresser collapses owing to ill-health he cannot claim redundancy. Although we do not consider ourselves self-employed we are another example of that category. If TD's lose their seats after a certain number of years they may have difficulty surviving on their pensions. We should also introduce a scheme for the retraining of the self-employed who have had to close their business.

The ceiling for calculating lump-sum payments is at present £2,500. The Minister proposes to double this figure. This figure should be linked with the cost-of-living index in order to make allowance for inflation. The Minister should also be allowed to increase this figure from time to time.

As the Minister said, the rebate system is complex. Employers should be encouraged to retain employees under notice for as long as possible. I see that there is an adequate bonus of 2½ per cent of the rebate for each week of extra notice up to a maximum of eight weeks. I can understand that the scheme has to be limited because of the possibility of abuses.

The improvement in the function of the National Manpower Service has been noticeable since the Minister came into office. We should not spare our efforts in trying to ensure that we have an efficient placement service. The new temporary hire service which was referred to in the White Paper is also very important.

I am pleased that employers will be encouraged to give workers under notice of redundancy reasonable time off to look for alternative work. It is also fair that employers are safeguarded from abuses by employees. I am glad that the membership of the Employment Appeals Tribunal is being increased. It is unfortunate that they have such a backlog of cases. The Minister has decided to increase the number of vice-chairmen by three to five and to increase the number of ordinary members by six to 30. I hope, if he finds that the workload is not being catered for, that he will increase the numbers or perhaps in some way have temporary appointments made to the Employment Appeals Tribunal pending the hearing of the present backlog.

I shall not take up any more time as I think Deputy O'Keeffe is anxious to speak and I have more or less made the points I wish to make. I am delighted with this legislation and I should like to commend the Minister and his officials for the vast improvements in the Bill.

I shall be very brief on this Bill which deals with how workers should be treated when they find themselves redundant. In a general sense I wonder whether we are devoting enough thought to preventing redundancies. Our effort at industrialisation is succeeding over a number of years to a large extent because of the very good work of the IDA but on the other hand we have the difficulty that a certain number of the jobs created are offset to a very large extent by the number of redundancies. From that point of view fresh thought is necessary as to how to approach the question of preventing job losses. This is something relevant to this Bill. There is agreement on all sides of the House that in the unfortunate circumstances that might arise where a worker finds himself redundant he must be treated properly and given adequate sums to keep him going until such time as he finds alternative employment. At the same time we must look at the situation in regard to the frightening level of redundancies we have had in recent years. I suppose there are many factors behind this. Certainly, our entry into the EEC contributed to some extent to redundancy in certain vulnerable industries. I believe that if we can create the same dynamic in the area of preventing job losses as we have as a result of the IDA efforts in job creation we shall have introduced a further dimension to the solution of unemployment.

I appreciate that there are agencies which do their best in this area. We have Fóir Teoranta which tries to help our companies running into difficulties. I think we are not doing enough. The cost of creating a new job as calculated by the IDA is so high that I wonder if we are devoting sufficient time, money and energy to protecting the jobs already there. Whether this should be resolved by establishing a new agency or whether perhaps an arm of the IDA should be involved here I am not sure, but I believe new thinking is needed in this area. I understand that the number of redundancies last year was of the order of 13,000. When we consider that colossal figure we must come to examine whether any of those redundancies could have been prevented with the idea of establishing a situation in the future in which the rate of redundancy would be kept to the lowest possible level. Accordingly, while welcoming the Bill and appreciating that every effort must be made to look after the worker who is redundant I urge the Minister to devote time and energy and the time and energy of his officials to concentrating on that problem. If we can reduce the number of redundancies significantly I believe we shall have come a long way towards solving the unemployment problem.

I thank the Deputies who took part in the debate and welcome the general acceptance of the Bill. Before going into some of the points made. I should at the outset correct a figure that has been floating around and which is absolutely incorrect. The number of redundancies in 1978 was 9,867——

What did the Taoiseach say here at column 129 of the Official Report of 31 January?

——less than 10,000 for the first time since 1973.

On a point of order, the Taoiseach said it.

This is not a point of order; it is argument.

Less than 10,000 for the first time since 1973.

Is the Minister calling the Taoiseach a liar?

Does Deputy Mitchell, a green-horn in this House suggest that the Taoiseach of this country might be a liar? Shame on him.

Column 129 of 31 January.

It is time the Deputy learned to conduct himself and show some manners in the House.

The Minister ought to have his figures done for him——

The Deputy will please cease interrupting.

I said and I repeat that the number of redundancies for 1978 was 9,867——

And the Taoiseach said 13,000.

——the first time since 1973 that the figures fell below 10,000: In other words, the basis of what the Deputy said this evening is completely wrong, without foundation and as usual not researched.

I am quoting the Taoiseach.

The Deputy must cease interrupting.

Furthermore,——

The Minister is accusing me of——

The Deputy must restrain himself.

That information was given by me in a written reply——

The Taoiseach gave the figure as 13,000.

That reply was given by me——

(Interruptions.)

When the Minister has finished the Deputy may ask a question.

The Minister was quick to interrupt me when I gave that figure. I have the reference here now. I went to the trouble of getting it. The Taoiseach has repeated it several times.

The true figures do not suit——

This is another case of false figures.

Is the Deputy defying the Chair now?

The Minister is defying his own Taoiseach.

If the Deputy is going to continue I shall have to ask him to leave the House. The Deputy will not interrupt. He is not in possession.

May I read the reference?

The Deputy will have an opportunity.

I repeat—and, of course it is hurtful to somebody like Deputy Mitchell——

Do not go for personal abuse now.

——who for so long has been trying to read different things into different debates and of course it is an indication also of the lack of work and effort that the same Deputy puts into the preparation of any of the speeches he produces here—that the figure was given by me in reply to a Parliamentary Question recently. I repeat that the figure for 1978 was 9,867, the first time since 1973 that the number of redundancies has been under 10,000 in one year and it is 3,000 better than in 1977. This discredits much of what Deputy Mitchell said at the outset regarding redundancies going on unabated. Having said that the figure is down to under 10,000, I accept entirely that there must be no complacency and that we cannot be happy with that figure. We must strive and spare no effort to ensure that it is further reduced. That must be our aim.

Still referring to Deputy Mitchell's opening comments, the speech that I delivered was a factual account of the changes being introduced in the redundancy structure as a result of the experience of the operation of the scheme over a decade or more and, as well, the introduction of pay-related social welfare from April next. Understandably then, that pay-related aspect of redundancy would apply in addition.

I welcome the general acceptance of the Bill. I emphasise again that the figure for the qualified redundancies notified for 1978 cannot be challenged and can be substantiated. Deputy Mitchell suggested that we should use the fund to save jobs. The emphasis on job saving rests, and should rest, with other State agencies—for example, Fóir Teoranta and the IDA. The redundancy fund is specifically and specially for the unlucky worker's benefit. The number of redundancies has been reduced and the aim should be to reduce it further. We must cushion the redundant worker against unemployment, particularly the aged or advanced worker to whom Deputy Ryan referred. There is a trauma, a disappointment, a change of lifestyle in that person's life. When redundancy looms and then becomes a reality certain hardships are created and so this cushioning is necessary. Obviously, this is primarily the purpose of the redundancy fund.

In addition to the Government's commitment to job saving through agencies such as Fóir Teoranta and the IDA, in the budget last year and again this year extra money has been provided for the employment maintenance scheme in the clothing, footwear and textile sector in order to help alleviate hardship in that type of vulnerable industry. These are obvious ways, and obviously they are reflected in the redundancy payments figures for 1978 which I have just given to the House.

I thank Deputies for their research into the Bill and their study of it. I also look forward to further discussion on Committee Stage of some of the points mentioned.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the two weeks' notice. He was complimentary about the decision to allow reasonable time off but he asked if that could be extended. The difficulty here would be that the two weeks now allowed in the redundancy payments scheme have to be directly related to reasonable time off for seeking employment. As the Deputy is aware, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act requires notice for periods of longer than two weeks. To extend the time available for seeking work beyond that two weeks would be unreal and not easy to operate because it is tied up with the Redundancy Payments Bill.

Redundancy was viewed from many angles. In my opening statement I suggested that the scheme was introduced in 1967 for many reasons, some then existing and some anticipated. Of course, it must always be our aim to avoid redundancies to the greatest possible degree. However, for various reasons at different times redundancy becomes a reality, and the 1967 Act was a recognition of that. The changes and improvements suggested now are designed to assist further the worker who becomes redundant.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the employers' contribution as a tax on the payroll. I do not agree. An employer has duties to his employees and they include a contribution to a redundancy fund to be used in the event of redundancy occurring. Hopefully, it will never happen. However, it is important that an employer should contribute to the redundancy fund because of the danger of redundancy facing workers in the future.

Deputy Mitchell suggested that there could be a phased reduction in the contribution in order to give an employment incentive. We are talking about the 0.5 per cent contribution, which is a small portion of the overall contribution between employer and employee. To reduce it would have little or no effect. I have already mentioned the employment maintenance scheme as being far more positive.

Another Deputy said that we had better jobs in the past. I do not know what was intended by that comment. But it is important to compliment, as Deputy O'Keeffe did today, the IDA, who are doing a tremendous job in creating new posts here. It is the duty of the Government and the community to fulfil the expectancy of young people and to create as many jobs as possible to help these young people through work experience—in other words, to give them an opportunity of advancing towards full employment. There is a growing pattern of movement of manpower. Understandably, we will always have a certain amount of movement in this area. If it leads to redundancies, we can only hope that they will continue to fall in number.

The removal of the weekly payment was referred to. It appears that this will be an improvement for all employees. There were restrictions on the existing weekly payments combined with lump sums. Quite a sizeable percentage of redundant people qualified for no weekly payment, a still bigger percentage qualified for a reduced weekly payment, and only a small number qualified for the full weekly payment. That could be seen to be discriminatory in itself. It was accepted and welcomed by both sides of industry generally that that change should take place. I am satisfied that the recipients under the new arrangements will do better from 6 April next.

The point was made that employers should not get a rebate if they do not give the two weeks' notice. It would be fairer, and our experience in the Protection of Employment Act, for example, has been that undesirable though the notices are, employers appear to be complying with the terms of that. I have little reason to believe that they would not now comply with the two weeks' minimum notice under this Bill, particularly when there is a situation where minimum notice and terms of employment cover the notice period at any rate. It would obviously be in unusual circumstances that an employer would not comply and the exception in that case would not necessitate any major change in this.

It is provided that the upper age for redundancy entitlement will now automatically correspond to the old age pension age. As well, the present arrangements will entitle a 66-year old person to avail of payments up to 1980 rather than 1979 in order to be fair to people as a result of transitional changeover there.

Reference was made to the danger of giving powers to the Minister. I must emphasise the need for flexibility to run the fund effectively, because the level of the fund income depends on the level of contributions, the level of redundancies and the level of lump sums paid. As Deputies are aware, the size of lump sums depends on a number of factors. To manage the fund effectively I need the powers to influence the level of the money in the fund quickly so that when I act the fund responds. It would be undesirable for the fund to have to borrow from the Exchequer as it had to in the past. It should be self-supporting. I hope that Deputies will agree to the enabling provision proposed in the Bill.

It is not accurate to say that redundancies are continuing unabated. I fully appreciate and support Deputy Ryan's point that the older age groups suffer the greatest trauma in a redundancy situation and their placement can be more difficult than the placement of the younger age groups. However, the scheme is weighted in favour of the older age group by a more favourable calculation of the lump sum. I assure the House that I will keep this aspect of the redundancy payments scheme under review.

If the Minister wishes to finish this debate tonight he has five minutes left. There is no obligation on him to finish it.

Thank you. Deputy Ryan also referred to the fact that the wage ceiling for the lump sum calculations should be higher than the £5,000 and that the basis for calculation should be higher. The raising of the ceiling will mean a very substantial increase in lump sum entitlements. As to the basis, after a year's experience I propose to examine this revised scheme. This is a sensible approach because at the end of a year's experience we can see what effect the lump sum payable calculated according to the scheme will have, the position of redundancies and redundancy levels and the effect of our contribution to meet the needs. All these things can be looked at more closely after a year.

Deputy Ryan made other points in relation to the reduction in hours. When a worker qualifies for redundancy payments he must do so in relation to the employment that is his main source of income. Therefore, at present it would be a little unrealistic to reduce the minimum hours to below 20. Having examined this situation I believe that 20 is the most desirable figure. Deputy Ryan also referred to the qualifying period and suggested one year to qualify rather than two. Having weighed the situation and listened to the points made I am convinced that two is reasonable. While I do not believe in arguing UK legislation as the best to follow, just for the sake of it, two years is the qualifying period there. I have already doubled the ceiling from £2,500 and that is a major step forward. I indicated that I would review the calculation of the lump sum after one year's experience of the scheme. Of course job losses must be kept to a minimum, but the measure we are dealing with today only changes the present redundancy payment scheme by making certain provisions and worth-while improvements in respect of workers who become redundant. Deputy Briscoe raised an interesting point in relation to the self-employed. I am not quite sure how the self-employed person would qualify for redundancy payments by making himself redundant. However, a self-employed person is entitled to qualify for training under the AnCO schemes.

I do not wish to get into any undue hassle but is the figure of 9,867 mentioned by the Minister the gross figure for all redundancies?

It is on the record of the House that I said it was the figure for qualified redundancies notified for 1978.

Will the Minister then exclude the agricultural figure from what he is saying?

The Deputy should understand that I have given the qualified figure compared with the figure for 1977. An exact comparison of like with like shows an improvement of more than 3,000.

Is the Minister saying that the Taoiseach's references were wrong?

I have answered the question.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 20 February 1979.
Top
Share