As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the Bill is to afford greater protection to workers threatened by redundancy. It provides for an early-warning system by compelling an employer contemplating redundancies to enter into prior consultation with the representatives of the employees concerned. It also provides that an employer must notify the Minister for Labour of proposed redundancies and then to delay their implementation until 30 days have elapsed. The meaning of collective redundancies is the dismissal of at least five employees over any consecutive period of 30 days in an establishment employing more than 20 and fewer than 50 persons. The number of dismissals required to constitute collective redundancies rises progressively with the size of the establishment.
Deputy Fitzgerald indicated that we were anxious to assist the Minister in trying to control massive redundancies. He stated that redundancies disrupted homes and towns and anything that could be done to prevent redundancies would be work well done. However, the Bill has many defects. Like other legislation that has been brought before the House, it is patchwork legislation. As Deputy Moore pointed out in relation to a previous measure, this legislation should be more comprehensive. We should not depend on one Act to assist another. This has been the situation in regard to a number of Bills. We hoped to have a workers' charter but this Bill is far from it: indeed, the patchwork system does not lend itself to congratulations.
This Bill is heavily European in so far as the dictates of the European Commission have been included in it. This Bill and the European measures relate to large industries. We are a small country and we encourage the development of small industries. We hear a lot of talk from the IDA and the Minister in relation to small industries. Surely we are not going to desert the people in the small industries. The Bill refers to establishments employing more than 20 and fewer than 50 persons. Many of our industries employ fewer than 20 workers. This Bill will not cover a great proportion of Irish workers. Why should they be discriminated against? I hope the Minister will have second thoughts on this aspect of the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I hope he will give consideration to small industries and to the workers employed in them. They require more protection, because the trade unions take action in regard to pending redundancies in large industries. This Bill must be tailored to the requirements of Irish industry and to our development.
We must not be influenced by measures that are applied in France, Germany or other industrialised countries. We are a separate entity with a different industrial structure. It is sad to think that workers in small industries are not protected. How does the problem of redundancy in a very small concern differ from that in a big concern? Surely the problem of redundancy affecting 10 or 15 people in a small industry is as important as that in a larger industry? There is no answer to this problem except to appoint more inspectors. Whatever protection is afforded to one worker should be afforded to all, irrespective of where they work and irrespective of how the system is operated in their sector. This is a great defect in the Bill, and I hope that Deputy Gene Fitzgerald will, in relation to his amendment, deal with section 6 very exactingly and seek protection for the people in the type of industry I have mentioned.
There are certain omissions from the Bill. The public sector is not included. Shipping companies are not included. The stewardesses and other women employed on the ferries that ply between this country and Le Havre and between this country and England also need protection. This is the Protection of Employment Bill, which would indicate to people outside the House that it was all-embracing and that all workers were being protected. The employees in the public service and in the shipping companies should be protected. Maybe there will be redundancies in the public service. Who knows? The way things are going there could be very few public servants here next year.
Deputy Fitzgerald, in the course of his contribution expressed his alarm at several sections of the Bill, particularly sections 17 and 21. Section 17 is a provision in relation to an authorised officer. The Minister has written into this Bill, as he has written into other Bills, that the battering ram may be a process whereby he can break into a person's house. Subsection (2) reads:
The powers conferred on an authorised officer by subsection (1) (a) shall not be exercisable in respect of a private dwelling house unless the Minister——
Would the House take note of that, "the Minister"?
——(or an officer of the Minister appointed by the Minister for the purpose) certifies that he has reasonable grounds ...
Then he can break into the private dwelling. A person's private dwelling should not be at risk from the Minister or anyone else. The Minister should heed Deputy Fitzgerald's remarks in relation to this section. In other Acts that have gone through this House in recent times there is the same type of approach. It was in the Banks Act, for example. Does the Minister really believe that this power is necessary? Does he really believe that employers in large industrial concerns are going to retreat to their homes and conduct operations from there in relation to redundancy? I do not think so. This is an unreasonable provision and it should be deleted.
Apart from all the defects of the Bill that have been pointed out in the course of discussion, there is the question of collective redundancies. That does not rule out progressive redundancies whereby an employer who does not want to become involved with the Department can, over a period, phase out many more people than the Minister purports to protect in the Bill. The problem of progressive redundancies is a cause of concern in many firms, large and small. While there is a limitation in this section in relation to the period, nevertheless, progressive redundancies are a problem. Collective redundancies take place at a time when positive proof can be produced, some major factors, and very few employers will attempt to create massive redundancies because there are other factors in relation to payments they must take into account. Therefore, this creeping paralysis type of redundancy that affects the workforce is more serious than the collective type.
In regard to collective redundancy there is consultation, unless it is an overnight closure, unless the firm decide because of some sudden serious development that they cannot continue to operate. No matter how the Minister tries to interpret this Bill and to apply its provisions, if a firm decides overnight to close because of loss of some important order or some serious defect that has become apparent, I do not think the Minister would be able to ensure the maintenance of employment for 30 days. On many occasions firms endeavour to carry on and carry their staff until such time as they feel an absolute closedown at an early period is essential. How does the Minister propose to remedy that situation? Does he propose to make funds available for the continuance of the service for an additional 30 days or does he want a bankrupt concern to continue for that period in order to maintain employment?
Any Bill that can protect the worker to any degree needs the support of this House, however defective the Bill may be in our opinion. The Minister indicated quite rightly a few moments ago that there may be disagreement. We have expressed our views regarding the type of comprehensive legislation that is required and we have indicated the areas of defect in certain legislation. On this occasion, too, we shall endeavour to be as helpful as possible in relation to the legislation before the House but we have a duty to point to the aspects of it that we consider to be defective. It might be a worth-while exercise to ask ourselves how effective has been the whole range of legislation brought in by this Minister. Has it made substantial changes in industrial life? Has it led to harmony in industry or has it bestowed greater benefits on Irish workers? We admit that some effort has been made in bringing about improvements in this whole area but, regrettably, there has been no worth-while breakthrough in respect of the protection of workers. The type of protection required can be effected only by legislation that is based on the widest terms possible because the difficulty in relation to legislation of a piecemeal nature is that it tends, for the time being, to allow people lose sight of the problems that are likely to develop as a consequence of the problems already in existence.
Anyone studying this legislation will realise the disservice that it will do to those whom we endeavour to assist because I fear that it will have the result, at least in some instances, of making it easy for employers to render workers redundant. I am talking here in this context of employers who are unscrupulous or irresponsible but the majority of our employers do not fall into this category. They are responsible people operating very often in conditions that are very difficult, conditions that are dictated by Government policy vis-á-vis financial matters, taxation measures and so on. It would be only as a last resort that a responsible employer would allow his workers to become redundant. There have been many cases in which industries continued to operate although they were becoming non-viable as a result of carrying staff for a considerable period in the hope that conditions would improve. There have been times when Government policy in respect of tax changes, for instance, has forced industrialists into bankruptcy. However, this Bill is designed to ensure that any unscrupulous or would-be unscrupulous employer would take a responsible line in regard to his employees. It is unlikely that serious defects of the type envisaged by the Minister would arise in industries that are highly organised.
The whole area of conditions of employment is one that must be updated, just as the law in other areas must be brought up to date, but this is a continuing process. The present Minister has done a good job in this area. He has assisted Irish workers but, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, the Minister deserves some sympathy by reason of his having to tolerate some of the conservative elements in the Government of which he is a member. Perhaps if he had a little more power and if there were a few others in Government who showed concern for our workers, we would get more progressive legislation. It may be, on the other hand, that the Minister is being used by the Government to project an image of a Government that produce an abundance of legislation. Legislation in large quantities is of no use unless it is of a positive and progressive nature both to the community as a whole and to the particular sections it is designed specifically to protect. In the case of legislation of this nature regard must be had also to the industries concerned.
Unfortunately much of the legislation coming before us lacks these elements. Basically what is required is not so much to provide for situations of redundancy but to make available more jobs and in this way also to stimulate industrial development. In order to achieve this there must be a proper financial policy and a proper outlook on the part of the Government. We must aim at reducing the length of the dole queues. In order to make redundancies less likely we must create and stimulate employment on the broadest spectrum possible. In many instances people are doing jobs that do not require the type of higher educational qualifications those people sometimes have. We must endeavour to remedy this situation.
Deputy Fitzgerald quoted some figures which show how unemployment has increased. He recalled that in December, 1974, the total figure of unemployed was 81,000 while today the number out of work is 110,000. This Bill contains nothing to improve that situation.
Hopefully, the Minister will convey to his colleagues the necessity and the desirability of creating more employment in order, first, to give people the opportunity of working and, secondly, to relieve the pressures on industry. If we create the proper environment we ensure that industry is maintained. Many instances of redundancies could have been averted by appropriate Government action. They have failed in relation to the development of our own industries. A number of Ministers responsible for purchases of certain goods for the public service have disregarded the situation of Irish workers by allowing the commodities concerned to be purchased abroad. An example of this was the purchase by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, on behalf of the Department of Defence, of Saville Row shoes for the Irish Naval Service at a time when our own workers were being made redundant in the shoe industry. That is why I say that the Government have been responsible for some of the redundancies that have occurred. We know, too, that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has had printed abroad some of the labels used in his Department. It is sad to think that Irish workers are becoming redundant while the Government are purchasing equipment from abroad. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs purchased sports boots for the Army from Eastern European countries while Irish workers in the Cork Shoe Company and elsewhere are being made redundant or are working on short time.
The Government should look at the question of purchasing Irish made goods. Although there are many impediments because of EEC regulations, we must be loyal to our own workers and we must endeavour to ensure that we do not create redundancies by purchasing foreign made products which can be produced in Ireland. The purchase of foreign made furniture for Irish Life was raised in the House by Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick of Dublin. In recent years this type of purchasing is being sanctioned more and more although more and more people are becoming redundant. I do not blame one Government more than another, but this tendency has been more prominent in recent years. If Government Departments purchase equipment from abroad they are contributing to the redundancies taking place. A lot of equipment has been purchased from abroad that should and could have been made here as efficiently as in foreign countries. In my constituency recently I had a complaint from a concern in the Ballyfermot Industrial Estate that they had tendered for fish fryers to the Department of Defence, but the equipment had been purchased from an Italian firm, although the Ballyfermot firm were as competitive. This type of thing is a desertion of the Irish workers by Government Departments and can no longer be tolerated.
If the Government take the lead in relation to buying Irish other people will follow. We have a patriotic duty to maintain employment. I hope there will be no further redundancies as a result of Government action. I do not blame the Minister for Labour. The Minister's colleagues in the purchasing sections of the Government have the responsibility. When we debated this question here in the House we did not get much satisfaction from them. A tender price is important, but jobs for Irish workers are more important. A tender price may be somewhat lower from a person in Taiwan, but when people become redundant we must meet social welfare payments all along the line and in the end the financial loss to the nation is greater. A climate of common sense should prevail in relation to the purchasing of equipment by Government Departments irrespective of the EEC regulations. The Government must take some blame for the redundancies that have taken place, and I would ask them to look at this aspect.
Will there be further redundancies in the future? Is that the reason for this Bill? Does the Minister see a run-down in the larger industries here? Will there be some change in Government policy whereby we will have wholesale redundancies in the larger industries, and is this Bill an effort to arrest a situation that is going to develop? If the system that has been applied to purchasing in the past continues to apply, we will have more redundancies. The Minister should recommend that we buy Irish so as to ensure that no Irish worker becomes redundant because of Government action.
Many of the workers who have become redundant probably have a grudge because of this although they will often walk into a shop and purchase an item without regard to the country or origin, thereby helping to put their fellow workers out of work. This aspect has not been dealt with effectively enough. Far too few people are concerned about the purchase of Irish goods. The Government should make it quite clear that Irish goods must be purchased so as to maintain employment. Trade unions should make their members aware of the developing situation and encourage them to buy Irish so as to maintain employment.
I hope that this Bill will throw more light on the redundacy problem. Legislation of this nature is developing legislation and updating is necessary. Sometimes we tend to treat legislation such as this as suspect because when a Bill is brought in we find out at a later stage that it was brought in for a less obvious purpose than was at first thought. In many concerns trade unions have not been as effective as they might have been and they should examine their consciences in relation to redundancies. Trade unions and their workers have caused redundancies in one way or another, by the lack of knowledge and lack of responsibility to their fellow-workers. Basically speaking the workers are members of trade unions and a vast number of families of Irish trade unionists purchase foreign goods on a large scale. All trade unions should ensure that their own members are advised as to the best means of reducing redundancies, not by giving a man 30 days but by the simple act of purchasing Irish goods which will mean the elimination of redundancy by continuity of employment. Understanding of our problem by all sections is necessary. There are long and short term assessments of the various situations that one would have expected to have been made by the trade unions in an organised way in the larger industries, and the same should apply in the smaller ones. We would like to eliminate redundancy and put the people where they want to to be, back to work. This is the kernel of the problem, to put them back to work so that we will not have redundancy.
It is sad to think that this year in the building and construction allocation in the capital budget there was a reduction of £18 million. This industry is a motivating force in Irish life. In this reduction of £18 million no allowance was made for inflation which would have made reduction in real terms approximately £40 million. When we see an industry being starved to the extent of £40 million we can see that there are going to be further redundancies outside the building trade. That trade is the second largest employer in the country with about 45,000 persons employed. Indirectly in the other sectors there are approximately 85,000. If there is a slow-down in building and construction there will be redundancies among the people who produce furniture, carpets and the other things that go to make up a home because the houses, the homes and the offices will not be there as a result of this substantial reduction in the capital budget.
The Bill itself is weak in many respects. Deputy G. Fitzgerald has comprehensively dealt with the various sections of the Bill and has pointed out its defects. From that the Minister must have a fair indication of the displeasures we have voiced in relation to all the measures. I am sad to think that the smaller industries were disregarded and that the people in them are deserted. In many cases these people are not organised, but at the same time we speak loudly and clearly about the development of small industries. I hope that the Minister will change his attitude in relation to section 6 and that the 15, 12 or ten people employed in small industries will be thought of with the same consideration as the people in larger industries. I hope that any legislation we will bring out when we get back to power will be all-embracing and that what is good for one worker will be good for all workers. No section should be singled out, certainly not those less fortunate than the people in the larger industries who are sometimes unorganised. Remember that these small industries are operating with State grants also and that they too have responsibility. The Minister must ensure that he does not discard any section of the community as he has done in this Bill. I hope that he will give consideration to the industries employing 15, 12, nine or eight as the case may be because every worker is important and none should be left outside the umbrella of protection.
