asked the Minister for Labour the number of prosecutions taken under the Protection of Employment Act, 1977, since the Act came into effect; the number of breaches of the Act which have come to the attention of his Department; if he considers that the Act is affording adequate protection to workers threatened by redundancy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

No breaches of the provisions of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977, which would have warranted the institution of prosecution proceedings, have come to the attention of my Department.

During the past two years all complaints by trade unions regarding noncompliance by employers with the provisions of the Act have been examined with a view to possible prosecution. A breach of the Act had not, however, occurred in any case.

Although the Act makes provision for trade unions to inform the Minister about any aspect of the statutory notification arrangements, few have availed of this procedure. I recently had a meeting with the executive council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions during which the question of the enforcement of the Act was discussed. I expressed my concern that the Act had only a limited impact beyond the notification requirements and the delay in implementing collective dismissals. I am convinced that there is scope for encouraging consultations which would enable trade unions to put forward opinions as to ways and means of avoiding or reducing the proposed redundancies.

I have also included a proposal in the recent Discussion Document on Industrial Relations for the introduction of a code of practice dealing with consultation with workers' representatives on proposed collective redundancies.

Has the recent closure and dismissal of workers in Mostek been drawn to the Minister's attention? What happened was that one shift going off was sent home two hours early and the shift coming on at 3 o'clock in the afternoon found the gate closed against them and security barriers erected. There was no notification that this would happen. As the number involved was in excess of 30, the figure laid down in the Act — as a matter of fact the workforce was more than 300 — was that investigated by the Department?

All the more recent and prominent closures — the Deputy referred to one — have been looked at by my Department. When the details were examined, no breaches of the provisions of the 1977 Act which would have warranted the institution of prosecution proceedings came to the attention of my Department, despite the impression conveyed to the public and to some of the workers.

Could the Minister explain how this case was not in breach of the Act when the Act states that collective redundancy means the dismissal for redundancy reasons over a period of 30 consecutive days of at least 30 persons in an establishment normally employing 300 or more employees. "At least 30 persons" is mentioned in the Act. Would 300 persons not be more that 30 persons? Therefore were this firm not in breach of the Act?

I am in sympathy with the point the Deputy has raised. I understand his concern which was expressed by myself and others in relation not only to that incident but to others. I have to tell him when detailed investigations were made by the Department, either following a complaint or on our own initiative, the actual facts as distinct from the way they were recounted or reported were such that they did not merit prosecution under the legal terms of the Act. If the Deputy wishes to put down a detailed question or wants an outline of what happened in relation to the incident to which he referred, I will make that information available to him. I do not have with me the precise details in relation to the case but I am aware of it and of other cases. On the basis of newspaper reports the impression was given of a breach of the 1977 Act but when a detailed investigation was made it was found not to be the case.

As it is now 3.30 p.m. we move to questions nominated for priority.