Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me the opportunity to raise this issue. I also thank the Minister of State for his attendance to reply. A firm in my constituency, Simmonstown Stud, Celbridge, County Kildare, owing to a change in operational procedures found it necessary to make a number of employees redundant. These employees were accommodated on site in what are known as tied houses. In other words, on foot of their terms of employment they had a house for the duration of their employment. We fully respect the right of the employer to change his or her operational procedures. There is no dispute as to whether the employees in this situation have to leave; we know they have to leave and find alternative accommodation. The problem lies with the length of time it takes to find alternative accommodation in the present climate.

A group of people comprising approximately half a dozen families who have lived and in some cases given up to 20 years service to their employer now find themselves, having been made redundant, also homeless. In different times it would have been possible to rehouse them through the local authority. However, Kildare County Council has 6,500 families on its housing list and there is no possibility of them being rehoused quickly. It must be done through a process of negotiation between the housing authority and potential tenants. Problematically, the agent for the employer is unwilling to listen to reason and, according to the tenants, is proceeding to hassle and intimidate them into clearing out of the houses and giving the firm vacant possession. While it is undoubtedly entitled to vacant possession, the manner in which this is being achieved leaves a great deal to be desired. In these enlightened times when we are more conscious than ever of the need to be fair to everyone and of the rights and wrongs of events, everyone, including those in a position to do so, should recognise that individuals not in such advantageous positions should be accommodated. We should also recognise the vulnerability of the families concerned and give them reasonable time to find alternative accommodation.

The theory is that, when someone is made redundant, he or she will receive a redundancy payment, as will be the case in this instance. The theory is also that people should be able to use their redundancy payments to house themselves. However, this stretches the imagination quite a bit. As we all know, it is not possible to do so, even with today's lower house prices. If necessary, the law should be changed to ensure that, in circumstances such as the one I have outlined, sufficient time is given to enable negotiations to take place and allow people to acquire alternative housing. Having given up to a quarter of a century of service to a particular employer in many cases, the people concerned should not need to use their redundancy payments to rent accommodation in an emergency.

These were the conditions of the time and, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I know well, operating under such guidelines was beneficial to all concerned. There have been many such cases. In most, both sides are willing to accommodate each other. In this case, the tenants, for want of a better description, are willing to accommodate their former employer by vacating the properties as quickly as possible. In such circumstances, there must be recognition of the fact that people need a little extra time, particularly in the current economic climate. If the legislation does not allow for this, it should be changed.

Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and thank the Deputy for raising it. He has asked that the Government consider the need to amend or introduce legislation to ensure employees who have been provided with accommodation by their employers as part of their terms and conditions are given adequate time to secure alternative accommodation on their retirement, dismissal or redundancy, with particular reference to the latter and the need to prevent homelessness. In proposing such a legislative approach he has referred to an individual case in which employees who have resided for up to 20 years in accommodation provided on site by their employer on foot of a caretaker agreement have been unable to find alternative housing accommodation in the time since being made redundant. I am not aware of the specific details of the case, but it is clearly a matter of concern and I can appreciate the difficulties that might be caused for persons who find themselves in such an unfortunate position.

In effect, the Deputy is suggesting there might be a need to amend or introduce legislation to provide for an appropriate adjustment period for such persons. At issue, for example, could be an extension of the current minimum notice period to allow for a period of further adjustment by employees post-employment. The Deputy will be aware that dedicated legislation providing for minimum notice entitlements is in place, namely, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001. The terms of the legislation specifically provide for a range of minimum notice periods to apply, the length of which relates to the period of employment of the employee concerned. The basic entitlement is a minimum of one week's notice. Persons with more than 15 years employment experience are entitled to eight weeks minimum notice. The Acts do not prevent an employee from waiving his or her right to notice or accepting payment in lieu of notice. On the basis that the employees to whom the Deputy refers were in employment for some 20 years, they would be entitled to this minimum notice period. If their contract of employment provided for longer periods of notice than the statutory minimum period, the longer notice periods would apply under contract law. There is nothing to prevent an employer and an employee from agreeing to include accommodation terms in an employment contract. For statutory entitlements, employees can vindicate their rights through the normal dispute settlement bodies. For other non-statutory contractual terms in general, where disputes arise, they may need to be pursued under contract law through the courts.

If it is the contention of the Deputy that such minimum notice periods provided for in extant legislation should be increased to allow a sufficient adjustment period for persons to secure alternative accommodation, where there is a caretaker agreement, post-employment, I cannot support such an approach. In the first instance, it would not be feasible to apply such additional obligations on employers in these challenging economic times. To do so would not only have a detrimental impact on individual employers, it could also affect sectors of the economy in such a way as to be detrimental to maintaining and growing employment. It would have significant and wide-ranging implications across the economy generally and potentially for a range of employers and employments. In current circumstances where businesses are struggling to remain competitive and contain costs, we must maintain a strong degree of balance and cannot impose on employers additional costs associated with new obligations post-employment where persons are retired, dismissed or redundant and where the normal contracts of employment have been terminated. I note that the Deputy has indicated that the accommodation provided in this specific case was provided by the previous employer on foot of a caretaker agreement for persons who are now redundant and where there is no longer a contract of employment in place.

Matters concerned with landlord and tenant law are ones for my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality. I understand there is in train a reform of such law, with proposals being circulated on these matters.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

De bhun ordú an Tí don lá inniu, tá an Dáil ar athló go dtí 2.30 p.m. Dé Chéadaoin, 14 Meán Fómhair. On this historic day which marks the end of Adjournment debates in their current form, pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Dáil stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 September. Go mbeirimíd go léir beo go dtí Meán Fómhair.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We extend our good wishes to you also.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I formally propose a vote of thanks to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Minister of State on this historic occasion.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second that proposal.

Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I offer my compliments to colleagues on this and the other side of the House.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And to the staff.

Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course, to the staff who look after us.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And who are very patient.