This is the key section in this Bill giving rise to the definition of collective redundancies. I should like to make one point of criticism and inquiry from the Minister. We have had this on other Bills that seek to initiate and put into our legislation Community directives. The Minister stated that this Bill incorporates decisions reached at a Council of Ministers meeting in December, 1974, which adopted the EEC directive on harmonisation of the legislation of member states relating to collective redundancies. Whatever is wrong with the administrative machine or the governmental machine, it is not good enough that we should have such a delay. A directive adopted by the Council of Ministers in December, 1974, required what is a relatively simple legislative measure here dealing with collective redundancies as defined under section 6. Yet we have had this delay over that period of time. I appreciate the exigencies of the machine and how the draftsman's office has to be satisfied and so on, but there was a two-and-a-half year delay in giving legislative effect to a directive adopted and cleared by that Council of Ministers. I voice similar criticism on other matters, and I have noted it as a very dangerous aspect. I am not making any personal criticism of the Minister, but it is a very dangerous aspect creeping into our adoption of EEC directives and Council of Ministers' decisions. Three or four other similar pieces of legislation came before us over the past 12 months and they indicated that there was this unnecessary delay. On a head count of these matters we tend to be last or second last of member countries in either adopting legislation or decisions, whether in legislation or regulation form or merely decision form. We are always near the bottom of the league table in regard to the adoption of these matters. I am not asking the Minister to go into detail in defending the Government record. Perhaps there is an explanation for this case, but I can assure him that it is fairly general in regard to our adoption of EEC decisions, and it is not good enough. A small country should be better than bigger countries in this respect. We have very little excuse. Wherever the reasons for the delay lie I do not know, but I would like if the Minister would elaborate on what I have stated.
Protection of Employment Bill, 1976: Committee and Final Stages.
I agree with the Senator that it is wise to implement directives as rapidly as possible. I would point out that there are some improvements in this legislation for Irish conditions over the directive. The Department of Labour have been extremely busy with legislation which we are now getting out of the pipe at this point. There may be criticism of the way we prefer legislation in the State. It is a pretty cumbersome procedure and that is a matter that will have to be looked at in the future. It is true that there was quite a delay between the drawing board side of legislation and the final implementation stage.
Someone somewhere should look at it.
Is the Minister able to close the loophole that seems to be in the definition of collective redundancy which limits the redundancy to what happens in a 30-day period without taking any account of what happened in the preceding number of 30-day periods? It seems to me that the whole force could be made redundant, 50 per cent certainly over six months, without coming in under this Bill.
I was making the point, in reply to that point which the Senator made on Second Stage, that whatever period one takes the fact is that it may be argued that there is a loophole because the Bill deals with periods and with numbers, because it deals with numbers of people in their collective aspect and these are the parameters under which this legislation operates. For individuals in a redundancy situation we have other legislation to deal specifically with the problems. No matter what period we set here, if we extended the period and changed the numbers around, it could be suggested that hypothetical examples could be cited which would fall outside the parameter set down. We must make a clear choice both in regard to the period in which the Bill operates and the numbers who will be affected. It would not be possible to have watertight legislation to meet all possible hypothetical situations because one can always cite a case that falls just outside the period selected. In so far as the individual employee is concerned, I am reasonably confident that, taking the complete body of legislation which we have been enacting in this House and the other House recently, he is given reasonable assurance as to his rights and consultation.
Would the Minister give an assurance that he will keep the point I raised under review?
Yes.
I am concerned with the preservation of employment, not so much the individual rights.