I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—
Redundancy Contributions (Variation of Rates) Order, 1973.
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 13th June, 1973.
Redundancy Contributions (Variation of Rates) Order, 1973: Motion.
This motion seeks approval of a draft order to provide for increases in the rates of weekly redundancy contributions. The authority to make this order is contained in section 28 of the Redundancy Payments Act.
The main reason for these increases is the increased number of redundancies in the year 1972 which has meant that the fund has been depleted. There is thus the necessity for putting the fund into a buoyant condition again.
The major change envisaged in this order compared to past practices is that we seek the increases in respect of men and women—that is the contribution that the employer would be expected to pay in respect of men and women employees. We are now looking for these increases solely from the employer. In other words, we are not seeking to increase the rate of contribution to the insurance stamp from either male or female worker under the heading of redundancy: we are seeking the total increase from the employer.
We are taking this decision to change from past practice because, in my opinion, the person who suffers mainly from rationalisation of work procedures and any resulting redundancy is the employee. Speaking in a general sense, redundancy or any changes in work procedures are usually a result of management decisions—taken, perhaps, for the greater good of the firm in question. The main casualty of such planning measures at the level of the firm is the worker, who very often in many cases is forced to search for fresh avenues of employment for many weeks and months. I believe it would be unfair to burden the worker with any extra contributions necessary to keep the fund in good condition or to impose any extra levies on him. This is to provide him with sufficient financial help at a time of economic adversity when he is out of work.
I should like to add that the practice in Britain is that workers make no contribution to the redundancy fund. Admittedly, the difference between here and Britain is that their payments are solely in lump sum form, whereas we here have a weekly and lump sum form.
The only departure from past practice is that we are seeking to put the redundancy fund in a position where it is in a more healthy financial state —if one can say that of a redundancy fund—and we look for the extra cash needed solely from the employer. Maybe there are certain employers who would object to this and say that it is putting an extra burden on the employer, but it is in the direction of the practice of EEC countries, where the employer must pay a much larger social cost per employee, and it is the practice in this country for employers. We therefore think we are in the mainstream of European developments in this area by taking this step to seek all the increases from the employer and to leave the employee's contribution, male and female, as it was.
We are prepared to agree to this order. The only comment I would make is that although we accept the reasons set out by the Minister for imposing the full charge on the employer—we can see the arguments he put forward are good—it is perhaps a mistake to look on it from the point of view of stressing the placing of the burden on the employer. Of course the burden will not be on the employer: it will be on the general consumer. Obviously employers will pass on costs of this kind to the public at large. We should be quite clear that it is a sum that will disappear in some mysterious way out of the personal pockets of the employers of Ireland: it will in fact be paid by the people of Ireland. However, in the circumstances it is a reasonable step and we are prepared to agree to it.
Question put and agreed to.