I am grateful to the Minister of State for taking the time to come to the House to take this Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, fuel smuggling and fuel smugglers have not gone away you know. Instead of it being a problem that is in abeyance, it is expanding all over the country, it is no longer just a Border problem. It costs the Exchequer an estimated €200 million in lost revenue every year but it also has a damaging effect on small businesses the length and breadth of the country. I am reliably informed by the motor industry representative group SIMI that there are now pop-up filling stations in Clare, Galway, Cork, Kerry, Laois, Offaly, Longford and Westmeath selling laundered fuel and adulterated diesel. This puts legitimate traders out of business and has a profound effect on hauliers who are trying to run their business legally, while costing the Exchequer, not to speak of the terrible environmental damage being done. I could not have timed this motion better if I had tried because last night another fuel smuggling depot was unearthed in Cavan. It is high time the Government cracked down on these cowboys and put them out of business. Enforcement is too lax and the range of measures brought to bear to date has simply not worked. What proposals does the Government have to curb this problem?
Adjournment Matters
Illegal Fuel Laundering
I thank the Senator for rightly raising this very important issue. He has raised it in the past, as have others. It is particularly poignant that he has raised it on a day when information has come through Revenue about the illegal operation in County Cavan. We owe the enforcement agencies, North and South, a huge debt of gratitude for their own work in this area. From information I have received, I am also aware of the intimidation of local authority officials, Revenue Commissioners staff and enforcement officers by these gangs of criminals, many of them connected to paramilitaries.
We take this issue very seriously and I have today spoken to the Minister for Finance. I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners who have responsibility for the collection of mineral oil tax and for tackling the illicit trade in mineral oil products that they are acutely aware of the threat posed by illegal activity and tax evasion in this area. The most serious risk is the large-scale laundering of markers from diesel, which is subject to a reduced rate of mineral oil tax on condition it is not used in road vehicles.
Currently the Revenue Commissioners collect €1.1 billion annually in excise from road diesel; therefore, the scope for loss of tax revenue from this fraud is very significant. It is also important to note other costs are associated with this criminality. Apart from undermining the competitiveness of legitimate businesses, it damages the environment, can damage consumers' vehicles and sustains organised criminal gangs. For these reasons the Revenue Commissioners have made action against illegal fuel related activities one of their top priorities. They are tackling the problem on a number of fronts, including robust and sustained enforcement action, implementing more effective controls in oil distribution and pursuing a more effective marker in conjunction with the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the UK.
On the enforcement front, action is taken at all stages of the fuel supply chain, tackling both those involved in laundering and the sellers of laundered fuel. The Revenue Commissioners are supported in this work by well established structures to ensure very close co-operation between all relevant agencies north and south of the Border. The cross-Border fuel fraud group brings together representatives from a number of agencies, including An Garda Síochána and the PSNI, as well as the UK and Irish revenue authorities. There has been excellent co-operation between all agencies in sharing intelligence and identifying and investigating criminals involved in this fraud. Since 2010 the Revenue Commissioners have detected and closed 14 oil laundries and seized 574,300 litres of oil, together with nine oil tankers and 29 other vehicles. This important work continues to be pursued vigorously. Just last night, as I said earlier, another oil laundry plant was uncovered in County Cavan and two vans, bleaching earth, laundering equipment and a large quantity of laundered product were seized.
While there has been considerable success, therefore, in detecting and closing oil laundries, it is recognised that this approach alone will not solve the problem. Oil launderers must be denied access to marked oil for the purposes of laundering and they need to be denied access to the market for their laundered product. Since last July, the licensing regime for road fuels has been tightened up to make it more difficult for launderers to get their product onto the market. The Revenue Commissioners are engaged in a vigorous campaign targeting specific locations nationwide, with the intention of immediate closure of unlicensed outlets and challenging instances of non-compliance. As a result, 38 filling stations have been shut by the Revenue Commissioners because they did not have a licence or were in breach of licensing conditions.
The key issue is licensing. Under the new rules one must obtain a licence to import oil into the country and a licence to obtain that product from the significant ports in the country. If one does not have the licence, one is turned down. There is also a computerised system that was not in place in the past. In recent months, there have been a number of detections of the "stretching" of petrol using methanol. The Revenue Commissioners are monitoring this situation carefully and will take all necessary action to counteract this form of fuel crime.
In addition to the ongoing enforcement action, legislative changes that will enable more effective controls in this sector have been put forward in this year's Finance Bill. These will lead to the introduction of new licensing requirements for marked fuel traders. The new arrangements will, for the first time, require any person dealing in marked fuel to hold a licence for the purpose. The granting of a licence will be subject to tax clearance requirements, and the applicant will have to show to the Revenue Commissioners that any conditions subject to which the licence may be granted will be complied with. The Revenue Commissioners will be empowered to revoke a licence if any of the licence conditions is breached.
In parallel with the introduction of this new licensing system, the regulations that lay down the detailed rules and requirements on mineral oil matters are being reviewed. It is intended that the requirements for record keeping will be strengthened and that a new requirement to make periodic returns to the Revenue Commissioners will be introduced. All mineral oil traders, including traders in marked fuels, will have to make regular returns — electronically — detailing their fuel transactions. The advantage is that if we see, for example, in a small area of the country an enormous amount of oil being purchased by one of the larger traders, the question will be posed as to why the trader needs this oil and what he or she is doing with it, given the sale of product in other parts of the garage. This gives us the power to do that for the first time.
Steps are also being taken, in close co-operation with the UK authorities, to acquire a more effective fuel marker. The Revenue Commissioners are planning to go to the market shortly, with the UK authorities, to seek a new marker. A good deal of preparatory research has been undertaken here and in the UK and we expect to proceed with this project shortly.
Stringent penalties are prescribed for offences relating to mineral oil smuggling and laundering. For example, a person convicted on indictment of an offence of evading or attempting to evade excise duty can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years or a fine, or both. Following a substantial increase introduced by the Finance Act 2010, the fine is an amount not exceeding €126,970 or, where the value of the goods is more than €250,000, an amount not exceeding three times the value of those goods. These penalty provisions permit the courts to impose sentences that would act as a deterrent to involvement in this form of crime.
The problem of fuel laundering and smuggling is a serious one, and the extensive enforcement action that is being carried out on an ongoing basis highlights the Revenue Commissioners' commitment to combating it. The new legislative steps that are being taken, together with the work on development of a more effective fuel marker, will serve to enhance the effectiveness of this action. I assure the Senator that there will be no let-up in the work against those involved in this criminal activity.
I thank the Minister of State for his thorough and comprehensive response. I am heartened by the range of measures being taken by various agencies of the State in terms of detection, enforcement and prosecution. It is to be hoped we are finally sucking diesel, as it were, on this matter. It is a problem that has been escalating out of all proportion. People might think they are getting cheap fuel, but whether they are wittingly or unwittingly putting laundered diesel in their cars, they are causing themselves a world of bother as it can cost more than €3,000 to repair damaged vehicles. I welcome the efforts being made. The local authorities are hit with the burden of cleaning up these laundering operations. They cause serious damage to the environment and it is no longer just a Border problem. However, I welcome the moves that have been made on licensing and the supply chain verification. They will help to solve this problem. I hope to see more prosecutions in the courts and that the courts will implement the full rigours of the law to deter people from this criminal activity which is putting legitimate businesses out of business. At no stage should we let up in our efforts in this regard.
I thank the Senator for the great interest he has shown in highlighting this issue in the House. Given his home location, he will be aware that this is a nationwide problem and not confined to the Border region. The Senator also raised the impact on local authorities. He is absolutely correct. Since 2003 the Government has provided €4.5 million for the purposes of supporting local authorities in Louth, Monaghan and Offaly for the clean-up operations generated by this activity. The fuel launderers produce a huge amount of sludge as a result of their activities, and that is dumped in fields and on roadways. The local authorities must then pick up the cost of dealing with it. At present the cost is borne centrally. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government recognises that it is not fair that the local authority must pay the cost. However, in addition to the €4.5 million, there is the environmental hazard and pollution created by this activity. I recently met colleagues in the Louth area who outlined to me, through their local authority, the very substantial cost involved in this area.
This is an issue throughout the country. It is an issue for the Revenue Commissioners due to the loss of tax revenue at a time when we need to take in as much money as possible, and it is an issue for the North and South due to the activities of paramilitaries on both sides of the Border. It is also an issue for the local authorities. I assure the Senator that this matter is taken very seriously by the Minister for Finance, me and the Revenue Commissioners. Any and every effort will be made. This year we will see the effect of the licensing regime and the supply chain requirements which have been put in place under the Finance Bill. They will make it harder for this criminal activity to succeed. We will monitor it closely this year.
Immigration Services
My Adjournment matter concerns the need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to review Ireland's position on the issuance of visas so as to best serve its economic needs so far as potential investors, talented or knowledgeable workers, students and tourists are concerned. The lion's share of our exports still goes to the United Kingdom, the eurozone and the USA. As the Minister of State knows, these regions are experiencing economic difficulties and face years of austerity, economic stagnation and low growth. Overall, however, the world economy is still growing. The so-called BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — continue to power ahead, while others are in decline. We in Ireland, therefore, need to diversify our trade to ensure the economy grows in order that we can create new jobs and instil new confidence.
Our success in the 1990s was based on American companies using Ireland as a platform to export to Europe. We can now replicate this with the BRIC countries, but we need to prioritise the attraction of foreign direct investment, especially from countries such as China, although I know we are doing our best in that regard. Such investment would lead to the creation of jobs. One only has to look at how well Ireland has worked as a European base for international businesses to see how we could be of benefit to Chinese companies. From my own experience of interacting with Chinese businessmen, I know they want Ireland to be their hand-holder in Europe. We have a highly educated young population and are the only English-speaking people in the eurozone. This should be our calling card, as well as defining how we identify Ireland for the Chinese business audience, especially now that China has large amounts of money to invest. It has foreign reserves of in excess $2.85 trillion and wants to diversify into other currencies such as the euro, as it does not want to be totally dependent on the US dollar.
A recent trade conference demonstrated that Ireland was in a unique position. We could be the home of innovation clusters if we got our visa issuing system right. American multinationals are still wealthy and looking at the Chinese market, but they do not trust the Chinese with their intellectual property. Ireland has a very good relationship with the United States and is building an interesting relationship with China. Therefore, this country could be the base on which innovation clusters are formed. The United States will trust us with the right team and we could be its access point into the Chinese market, particularly the public procurement sector. There is still a hierarchical government in China which, for example, controls the purchasing and usage of drugs. Nonetheless, there is a great opportunity, but we need the right visa system in place to attract the right workers with knowledge. One may say we have those workers already but only to a certain extent. For example, US universities are turning out 20,000 PhD students a year, half of whom are Chinese who cannot work in the United States. There is no reason we could not have alliances if we had the right visa system in place.
All EU countries, with the exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom, are signatories to the Schengen agreement. The Schengen visa makes it possible for someone to visit all of the countries in the Schengen area and cross internal borders without further formalities. Ireland has a more conservative policy in issuing visas than the United Kingdom. UK visas are more targeted, particularly in attracting investors and exceptionally talented workers. UK visas will be accepted in Ireland as part of the Olympic Games measure, provided visitors travel through the United Kingdom first. This is restrictive and we are learning that we must open up the system a little more. I suggest the following changes. First, the current visa position should be reviewed to see how Ireland's economic needs can best be served. Alternative visa arrangements should be examined such as an online pre-flight visa scheme with adequate safeguards and strict enforcement on arrival. Second, the issuance of a visa on arrival, subject to proof of adequate funds and other safeguards, should be considered.
I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say in reply.
The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, would like to thank the Senator for giving him the opportunity of updating the House on the way in which the immigration system is working in the interests of the economy. The Irish short-stay visa waiver programme commenced on 1 July 2011 and was scheduled to run on a pilot basis until the end of October 2012, taking in the period of the London Olympic Games. Under the programme, tourists or business people who have lawfully entered the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, on a valid UK visa are able to travel on to Ireland without the requirement to obtain an Irish visa. Nationals of 16 countries are included in the programme, including India, China, Russia, various priority Middle East countries and others. As part of the initiative, nationals of these countries who are long-term legal residents in the United Kingdom will have the cost of an Irish visa waived should they wish to visit Ireland. It is estimated that there are up to 1 million people in this category in the United Kingdom.
The Government agreed on 28 February to the extension of the programme for a further period of four years, that is, to the end of October 2016; to add Bosnia-Herzegovina to the programme, and, as a further measure to encourage tourism, to waive the fee for visas for long-term residents of countries covered by the programme who live in the Schengen area. This will be reviewed after six months.
As announced in a joint ministerial communiqué before Christmas, Ireland and the United Kingdom are also working on developing a possible common travel area visa. If this were to be realised, it would clearly be a boost to tourism.
Important as these visa developments are, we need to realise that the overwhelming number of current and likely visitors to Ireland for tourism purposes do not need a visa. The major fluctuations in our tourist numbers in recent years have little to do with visas. Nevertheless, the Minister has indicated that whenever we can use the immigration system in a sensible way to boost tourism, we will do so. For those who do need visas for tourism purposes or otherwise, it is probably worth recalling that the approval rates for Irish visas in our dedicated overseas visa offices in 2011 were actually very high and ran at 97% in Russia, 92% in China, 91% in India and 87% in Abu Dhabi, covering the Gulf and north Africa.
On 13 March the Minister formally launched two new programmes aimed at facilitating non-EEA migrant entrepreneurs and investors. These programmes will be open for applications from next month. The Minister had the pleasure of taking part in a debate on them a number of weeks ago in this House. Their purpose is to support direct or indirect job creation by harnessing the investment resources and entrepreneurial potential of migrants. To qualify for the immigrant investor programme, the migrant must make an investment of a designated type, ranging from a €2 million specially created low interest Government bond, a capital investment in an Irish business that creates or protects jobs, to a €500,000 endowment in the cultural, sports, educational or health areas. Investment in property may also qualify in certain cases. The start-up entrepreneur programme provides that migrants with a good business idea in the innovation economy and funding of €75,000 can be given residency in the State for the purposes of developing their business.
A lot of work has been done in the last couple of years on the issue of student immigration, both by this and the previous Government. We now have a coherent strategy covering promotion, quality assurance and immigration. This includes enhanced opportunities for graduates to stay on after they qualify.
It is not just a question of adopting a whole of government approach but also a case of the Government working alongside reputable industry stakeholders. There is widespread agreement that the future for Ireland in this area lies in offering a high quality product. The ultimate aim is to increase the number of international students and, consequently, earnings from this vital sector. However, it is not a case of numbers at all costs. Student immigration channels are recognised in every jurisdiction as being open to abuse by economic migrants; therefore, we must be clear that we are selling education, rather than jobs. Colleges which do not recognise this reality have a very limited future. We need to develop or, in some cases, redevelop key markets. In this regard, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service is working in partnership with the colleges on a number of programmes, the most recent of which is a pilot scheme with the English language sector to relaunch the Chinese market for adults and juniors.
These initiatives send certain important messages: first, that Ireland is open for business; second, that we are prepared to think creatively about how to use the immigration system in support of the national economic interest; and, third, that any changes must be properly thought through in advance and based on appropriate risk assessment.
I thank the Minister of State for that answer. I know things have developed in this area in recent months, of which even the people who put questions to me may not be fully aware. We are very reliant in the moves we make. Why can we not stand on our own two feet as opposed to following what the United Kingdom is doing? Why is Ireland restricting the issuing of visas to buy property here?
I do not know the answer to the Senator's second question. I will ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to answer it.
With regard to the Senator's first question, we are dependent on what Britain does because there is, and always has been, a common travel area between both jurisdictions. This has been a key part of our immigration strategy since the foundation of the State. We cannot take a move the British have not taken, on the basis that there is a land border between both jurisdictions and we are, consequently, dependent on them. We do not want to take a position relating to our nationals and their ability to travel on an east-west basis. That is why there is such dependency.
Britain has much more favourable terms than Ireland.
Rare Diseases
My matter relates to the medical condition epidermolysis bullosa, commonly known as EB. It refers to a group of genetic conditions, the central feature of which is extreme fragility of the skin. It is characterised by blisters and wounds on the skin and internal linings following even very minor friction. Children with the condition are often referred to as butterfly children, due to their skin being as fragile as a butterfly's wings. Mild forms of EB result in chronic pain and immobility. Severe forms affect many systems of the body, can be fatal in infancy or result in dramatically reduced life expectancy, and cause patients to live in constant pain. EB is a rare condition affecting an estimated one in every 18,000 babies born.
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to deal with this matter. I raise the matter because DEBRA Ireland has been in contact with me. Its members, for a variety of reasons, are concerned about the difficulties experienced by EB patients. For example, EB is not included in the long-term illness scheme. Many families do not qualify for the medical card on financial grounds and must rely on the unpredictable and subjective methods of assessment for qualification on a discretionary basis. When a medical card has been approved for an EB patient, it must be renewed regularly, despite the fact that EB is a lifelong incurable condition. Dressings are not listed as reimbursable items in the general medical or drugs payment schemes. I learned of one case where medication and dressings cost more than €1,000 per month. In many cases, dressings must be acquired through the hardship scheme, which is available only to those who have a medical card. The assessment process for the hardship scheme is, once again, subjective and tenuous as it is dependent on having an understanding and supportive local public health nurse or pharmacist. In addition to these challenges, many non-prescriptive drugs are required by EB patients but are not covered by the State schemes.
I seek a recognition of this condition as a long-term illness for which a medical card should be automatically provided. The difficulties in accessing medication must be streamlined and the obstacles I have outlined removed. The condition affects a small number of people but clinical photographs of patients are frightening and families who must deal with the condition every day find obstacles in the way of accessing the services, medication and support they need. I ask that the matter be considered.
I thank the Senator for raising this matter on the Adjournment.
The long-term illness scheme is a non-means tested scheme. It provides free medicines and medical appliances for people with 15 specified conditions. There are no plans to extend the list of conditions covered by the scheme.
People who cannot, without undue hardship, arrange for the provision of medical services for themselves and their dependants may be entitled to a medical card. In the assessment process, the HSE can take into account medical costs incurred by an individual or a family. Those who are not eligible for a medical card may still be able to avail of a GP visit card, which covers the cost of general practice consultation.
Non-medical card holders and people whose illness is not covered by the long-term illness scheme can use the drugs payment scheme. Under this scheme no individual or family pays more than €132 per calendar month towards the cost of approved prescribed medicines. The scheme significantly reduces the cost burden for families and individuals incurring ongoing expenditure on medicines. In addition, non-reimbursed medical expenses can be offset against tax.
Rare diseases are those which affect fewer than one in 2,000 people. Between 5,000 and 8,000 rare diseases have been described, affecting about 6% to 8% of the population in the course of their lives. Many of these conditions are complex, severe and debilitating. Epidermolysis bullosa is a rare disease.
Ireland has been supportive of the EU proposals on rare diseases. Countries are recommended to develop plans or strategies, preferably by the end of 2013. We are now well advanced in developing this work in Ireland. In April 2011, the Minister for Health established a national steering group to develop a policy framework for the prevention, detection and treatment of rare diseases. The national steering group identified a number of areas relating to rare diseases which it is considering, including centres of expertise, access to appropriate medication and technology, orphan drug development, research and information and patient empowerment and support.
An integral part of an effective policy framework will be the development of a dedicated HSE clinical programme. A proposal has been submitted to the HSE to establish a national clinical programme for rare diseases. The HSE has agreed to establish such a programme, the details of which remain to be worked through. In addition the steering group is planning to consult patients and key stakeholders in early summer on the broad proposals and recommendations that will emerge. It is expected that the steering group will submit a plan to the Minister for Health during the latter half of this year. I thank the Senator for raising this matter.
My information is that one in 18,000 babies born is affected by this disease. At present, 88 patients are attending the two specialist EB clinics in Our Lady's Children's Hospital in Crumlin and St. James's Hospital. The number of people affected is extremely small. All I ask is that EB be classified as a long-term illness. There is no cure for the disease; it is there for life. Serious consideration should be given to including EB in the long-term illness programme.
I was given the example of a family in Swords who have two girls, aged three and eight, and who have had to surmount all the obstacles I listed to get medical cards and to put support systems in place. It is quite difficult for parents to deal with that. First, they must deal with the knowledge that their children have a long-term illness that will not go away. Second, they must deal with the condition day to day.
I ask the Minister of State to consider what I ask. It is not a huge demand. The number of people affected is small. The one in 18,000 figure translates as approximately five babies being born with the condition every year in Ireland. We should give serious consideration to this matter and I ask that this be done.
I appreciate where the Senator is coming from and the challenges the diagnosis of a rare disease poses for an individual and his or her family. I do not believe the long-term illness scheme is the appropriate way to address some of these issues. The long-term illness scheme relates to 15 particular chronic illnesses that affect significant cohorts of the population. The intention was to relieve the cost of the additional medication associated with those conditions. The appropriate way to address rare diseases is through the clinical programme, as outlined in the reply, and also in terms of the steering group which is due to report to the Minister. I do not say for one moment that we do not recognise the difficulties associated with rare diseases, but action is under way to address them in a way that is specific to the rare condition itself.
Redundancy Issues
Today I took a short walk from these buildings to Dawson Street. I called into the Game shop to offer support and solidarity to the workers in the shop who are engaged in a sit-in. As the Minister of State is aware, that is the case in many centres throughout the State and in the UK.
I raise this Adjournment motion because of the gaps in legislation on the protection of workers who find themselves in such a situation. We can look at examples such as Waterford Crystal, TalkTalk, Vita Cortex, La Senza and now Game. While the issues are not all the same; the trend is the same in terms of a lack of employment rights in certain areas.
The best thing I can do is read a copy of the statement I was given by the workers, which eloquently outlines their plight and circumstances. It reads:
As of 26 March Game has told all employees in the Republic of Ireland that they are being made redundant. The company has appointed administrators, PricewaterhouseCoopers in the UK to look after the stores that are being closed there but they have failed to appoint a receiver to the business in the Republic of Ireland. We have only been told to make a claim to the State for our statutory redundancy entitlements, a process which we have not been offered any support with, and which we understand will take more than a year to complete while Game and PricewaterhouseCoopers walk away from any responsibility or liability in the Republic of Ireland, even while they have asked us to remove all company assets back to the UK, which we believe puts them out of reach of any Irish creditors. We believe Game and PricewaterhouseCoopers are making us a burden on the Irish State and Irish taxpayer while avoiding their responsibilities. Employees have not been given any of the paperwork or information required to claim redundancy from the State. We were instead given information about UK redundancy procedures. We were informed that we would not be paid redundancy or any statutory or contractual notice periods or any outstanding annual leave. Game and PricewaterhouseCoopers are still trading as a going concern in the UK and we feel that they should pay us the wages and entitlements we are due, including statutory notice and redundancy payments rather than forcing us to spend a year our families do not have claiming our entitlements from the Irish State and taxpayers. Game and PricewaterhouseCoopers can expedite these payments and allow staff to pay their mortgages and feed their families without having to wait as much as 16 months for their just entitlements. We, the employees of Game Ireland, believe the way we are being treated is wholly unfair and unjust. We are now sitting in our stores as a form of protest until Game and PricewaterhouseCoopers address our concerns.
That takes us back to the first sit-in which got prominence, which involved the Waterford Crystal workers. Then we saw what happened with La Senza, Vita Cortex and now with Game. A Labour Party motion was tabled in this House which called for an increase in the notice period an employer would have to give workers from 30 days to 60 days. That is something we must seriously consider. There are also provisions in the industrial relations Bill which exclude companies that are in receivership from having to give such notice. However, an anomaly arises in cases such as this where a company may not be solvent in this country but is operating in the UK or elsewhere. It should be liable while it is still generating profits and making money but not paying workers just entitlements. There are legislative gaps and they must be filled. We cannot continue to have such sit-ins and protest where workers are simply demanding basic entitlements. It is high time the Government acted on what is happening in these areas and put in place legislation to enhance employment rights in this country.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. I am responding to the Adjournment on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton.
The primary purpose of the redundancy payments scheme is to compensate workers, under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2011, for the loss of their jobs by reason of redundancy. Compensation is based on the worker's length of reckonable service and reckonable weekly remuneration, subject to a ceiling of €600 per week.
It is the responsibility of the employer to pay statutory redundancy to all their eligible employees. An employer who pays statutory redundancy payments to their employees is then entitled to a rebate from the State. Rebates to employers and lump sums paid directly to employees are paid from the social insurance fund.
The insolvency payments scheme operates under the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984, and is designed to protect certain outstanding pay related entitlements due to employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. Such entitlements include wages, holiday pay, sick pay, and payment in lieu of minimum notice due under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001.
The Minister for Social Protection has no plans to change this legislation. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 provide that, if an employee has been in continuous service with the same employer for at least 13 weeks, the employee is entitled to a minimum period of notice if the employer terminates the contract of employment. The Acts, which are under the aegis of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, do not prevent an employee from accepting payment in lieu of notice. The period of notice varies according to the length of service as follows: 13 weeks to two years service — one week's notice; two years to five years service — two weeks' notice; five years to ten years service — four weeks' notice; ten years to 15 years service — six weeks' notice; more than 15 years — eight weeks' notice.
Under redundancy payments legislation, an eligible employee must receive at least two weeks' notice. This two-week notice period can overlap with the minimum notice period provided for under the minimum notice legislation. The minimum notice legislation provides a means of redress for an employee who believes he or she has not received his or her entitlements, whereby the employee can make a claim for compensation to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I am informed by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, that he has no plans to amend the existing minimum notice legislation. I thank the Senator for raising the matter.
The Minister of State's statement indicates that the Minister for Social Protection has no plans to change the legislation on redundancies and also that the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has no plans to amend the existing minimum notice legislation. My simple question is what the Minister of State has to say to the workers who are engaged in a sit-in in Game.
I did not realise the Senator was raising a particular case. If he had given notice of that we may have been in a position to respond more adequately to it. If he is in a position to give me details of the case he raises I am happy to raise it with the Minister for Social Protection whom I expect will revert to him on the matter.