asked the Minister for Labour the total number of redundancies notified to his Department to date in 1989; the way in which this compares with the same period in 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Redundancy Numbers.
19.
asked the Minister for Labour the number of redundancies estimated to occur in 1989; and if he will outline the number of redundancies which occurred in each of the years (a) 1987 and (b) 1988.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 23 together.
The number of redundancies notified to my Department under the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts in the first nine months of 1989 was 10,637. This represents decreases of 36.9 per cent and 41.1 per cent on the figures for the corresponding periods of 1987 and 1988 when the figures were 16,856 and 18,048 respectively.
If the average monthly figure for 1989 to date is maintained for the remainder of the year, the 1989 total of notified redundancies should be in the region of 14,000 which would be the lowest annual total since 1979. In fact, the annual total may be somewhat less, as even within the 1989 figures there has been an encouraging downward monthly trend. The 1989 figure will certainly represent an enormous improvement on the totals of redundancies notified to my Department in the previous two years which amounted to 23,037 in 1988 and 24,090 in 1987.
The Minister is trying to prove by his figures that there is a downward trend in the number of people being made redundant. However, we have now pared our workforce to the bone which reflects no credit on the Government. Many very profitable companies — for instance, the two major banking groups — are now replacing people who were in receipt of a good salary with workers who are paid less. Many of these companies are in the public sector and are grant-aided. Although they are profitable they are still shedding staff and the time has come to update the legislation which came into effect in 1977. Under the Employment Protection Act the maximum fine which can be imposed for breaching its provisions is £500 under section 18——
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I am still very anxious to dispose of another priority question.
The reason the figures have dropped from over 30,000 some years ago to over 20,000 in the past few years is because or our economic policies and it is nonsense for anyone to say otherwise. People are now holding their jobs as employers have confidence in the future. Any independent assessor would agree with the CSO figures.
Deputy T. O'Sullivan rose.
Please, Deputy O'Sullivan, time is running out.
I sat through the 12 minutes devoted to Deputy Jim Mitchell's question and a long-winded reply from the Minister. I put a second priority question to the Minister which he refused to accept and directed to the Minister for Finance. However, it should have been answered by the Minister for Labour.
I am calling on the Minister to reply to Deputy Rabbitte's question.