Derek McDowell (Labour)

Like others, I acknowledge the genesis of this Bill in the Irish Ferries dispute of a few months ago, the outcome of which was particularly galling on a number of levels. It was galling in the first instance because what most of us thought of as an Irish company effectively dismissed several hundred Irish workers who had given many years of loyal service. It was also galling because the same company sought to employ foreign workers on levels of pay and conditions that were clearly exploitative and unacceptable to any Irish person accustomed to the standards of employment and pay offered in this country. It was all the more galling when the State, after a legal assessment, ended up subsidising the whole miserable affair by more than €4 million. That situation was calling out for reform. I am aware this Bill has been the subject of discussions among the social partners and it goes a considerable distance towards providing us with a blueprint for dealing with these issues.

I am somewhat bemused by the complicated nature of the process being put in place. One first sends a request to the Secretary General of the Department, who notifies the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who refers to the redundancy panel, which returns to the Minister and suggests that he or she might like to refer the request to the Labour Court, which makes a recommendation which can then be appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Do we really need something as complicated as that? For that matter, do we really need the panel at all? It would have been sufficient if the Minister could simply form a judgment and consult the Labour Court in the first instance. I do not understand why we need to go through what appears to be an excessively convoluted process to reach the same end point. I thank the Minister of State for making his officials available to us this afternoon and thank the officials for the comprehensive briefing they gave us. I gather the process is intended as a sort of clearing house to sift out cases which do not merit the attention of the Labour Court but it seems an excessively complicated way to achieve that end.

The process has been put in place for a pilot or experimental three-year period. I do not see why that has to be the case. A shift in the law is clearly needed and the Part 2 provisions are likely to be required in the future. It is excessively cumbersome to deprive the Minister of the right to continue the Part on his or her own initiative. We are in effect giving a veto to the social partners, which no doubt arose from the partnership talks. I am not sure, however, that it makes objective sense. If the Minister thinks it beneficial to have this process in place, he or she should have the discretion to continue the procedure irrespective of whether the social partners like it. It is not difficult, however, to see why some social partners might have problems with the provision in three years' time.

The central point of the Bill is important in terms of clarifying that an exceptional collective redundancy is a dismissal rather than a redundancy. Among the many insertions and amendments of past Acts, I am not completely clear whether an exceptional collective redundancy is also defined as an unfair dismissal. The Bill will make sense only if it establishes that the dismissal is ipso facto unfair and brings into play the entitlements to compensation set out in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify that matter in his response.

Reference was made to the age limit on redundancies. I have had an experience of this a couple of years ago with a constituent who was unfortunate enough to remain in her job a few months beyond her 66th birthday. The company for which she worked closed and she was denied statutory redundancy, notwithstanding her 30 years of service or the fact that others who had worked there for much shorter periods were entitled to statutory redundancy. Understandably, the matter caused enormous hurt and considerable hardship to the woman. The age limit is clearly a disincentive for anybody in similar circumstances to continue working beyond his or her 66th birthday. I am surprised that a constitutional challenge has not yet been made to that provision, which is now redundant, if I can be excused the phrase. I am glad the opportunity was taken to make the amendment.

It is our experience of social partnership legislation such as this Bill that the role of these Houses is to apply our collective rubber stamp. That process has served us well. I hope the Minister of State finds the time to pass this Bill through the other House before its dissolution.