Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 1967

Vol. 231 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39—Labour.

Minister for Labour (Dr. Hillery)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £30,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Labour, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Grants-in-Aid.

Deputies will be aware of the purpose of this Supplementary Estimate and the circumstances which have made it necessary.

The factory of John Rawson & Son (Ireland) Ltd., Dundalk, was destroyed by fire on 13th August last and this, unfortunately, led to the closure of the undertaking and the dismissal of some 500 workers. The disaster aroused widespread public sympathy for the workers because of the unforeseen circumstances in which they lost their employment at very short notice. The Government was, of course, very greatly concerned at the hardship for the workers and their families and it was clear that there was considerable support both in Dáil Éireann and among the public generally for the idea that special measures should be taken to relieve the situation.

Deputies will remember that at the Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders at which it was decided to put the Rawson Company into voluntary liquidation a resolution was also passed which recommended all shareholders to contribute 5 per cent of their shares of the assets to compensate the workers who had been disemployed. It was estimated then that, if all shareholders accepted this recommendation, the amount of compensation which would become available from the assets would be in the region of £20,000. The Government considered that, even if the full amount of £20,000 could be provided and paid out quickly, it would not be sufficient to make a real impact on the unfortunate plight of the Rawson workers. The fact is, of course, that a sizeable portion of the compensation which would be provided in this way would probably not be available for a considerable time ahead, when the affairs of the company were finally would up. In these circumstances, it decided that special State assistance should be given to the workers as an exceptional measure.

A suggestion which was very widely made was that the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Bill then before the Dáil should be applied retrospectively to the Rawson case. The House is aware for the reasons which I explained at length of the various stages of the passage of the legislation both here and in the Seanad, that the Government could not accept the principle of retrospection in relation to the Bill and there would, of course, have been additional objections to making the provisions retrospective to cover a single particular case. Other possible methods by which special compensation might be provided by the State were, therefore, considered. One such possibility was that the provisions of the redundancy scheme operated by a number of firms in the footwear industry might be applied to the Rawson workers, but this was not regarded as suitable by the Government, principally because the scheme does not extend to female workers.

Having examined the various possibilities, the Government felt that the most equitable basis on which compensation should be paid was by way of a scheme for lump sum related generally to the terms of the Redundancy Payments Bill. It decided therefore, to make lump-sum payments to the former Rawson workers at the rate of a half-week's pay for each year of service to every worker with a minimum of four years service over the age of 16 years, subject to a maximum lump-sum equivalent to 20 weeks pay in any particular case. The total cost of these payments will be in the region of £75,000, although the exact amount cannot be stated with certainty pending inquiries which are still proceeding about a small number of individual cases.

To illustrate what this will mean for the workers, I might mention that over 80 per cent of them will receive payments. Of these about 8 per cent will get sums of over £300, 32 per cent will receive between £200 and £300, 29 per cent £100 to £200 and the balance will receive payments of less than £100. I am sure that Deputies will agree that these payments are very generous and should do a great deal towards alleviating the hardship for the workers and their families.

A question that may be asked is why the terms of the compensation to be provided by the State do not differentiate on the basis of ages of the workers. I can assure the House that the Government are in complete sympathy with the idea that the older, long-service workers should, in cases of redundancy, be given more favourable treatment, as evidenced by the more generous provisions for such workers in the Redundancy Payments legislation. The feasibility of exercising similar preference on age grounds in allocating the State payments for the Rawson workers was fully considered, but the Government decided that they would not be justified in asking the general taxpayer to contribute more than the very substantial amount of £75,000 asked for in this Supplementary Estimate. A substantial additional sum would be necessary in order to enable more favourable treatment to be given to older workers. The only alternative would have been to reduce the amount of payments to workers in the younger age-group but this course also would be open to objections.

The Government consider that a good solution to this question would be if the compensation which is expected to be made available by the Rawson shareholders were devoted to the older long-service workers. I have conveyed the views of the Government in this regard to the liquidator of the company, who will have the responsibility for allocating these funds, and I hope he will find it possible to adopt this course.

One point that will, naturally, be of interest to the workers concerned is when the payments are likely to be made. I indicated recently in reply to a Dáil Question that I hoped to be able to make payments before Christmas and this is still my intention.

I have no doubt, from the sentiments which have been expressed since the disaster at Rawsons took place and from the various representations which I have received about the matter, that there will be general agreement in the House that the case is an exceptional one which merits exceptional treatment. I am sure, therefore, that all Deputies will welcome the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate, which I now recommend for the approval of the Dáil.

Mr. P. Belton

May I take it from the Minister's statement—this is my first time action in this capacity and I have not worked it out—that the workers will not get weekly payments thereafter?

Dr. Hillery

It is a lump sum payment.

Mr. P. Belton

When the Redundancy Act comes in, they would get a lump sum from the employer and weekly payments.

Dr. Hillery

That is right.

Mr. P. Belton

They will get only portion of the benefits they would get under the Redundancy Payments Act. First of all, I should like to bring the workers in this case within the ambit of the redundancy payments scheme. It is something which everybody in the House would support. I am afraid this is only a half measure. These workers in Dundalk have been abused. If we are bringing them into the redundancy scheme, we should bring them into it totally and not in this halfhearted way.

The Irish Independent on 17th October last reported a meeting of the shareholders. According to the report, about 30 of the 1,200 shareholders were there and on a show of hands, there was a vote of 17 to seven in favour of the liquidation resolution. As this did not give the required three-quarters majority, there was a vote, and 349,203, representing 87,300 units, voted for as against 9,012, representing 522 units.

Of 1,200 shareholders, only 30 turned up and in the poll eventually, it was the large shareholders who voted for liquidation. A certain group there have been making money out of the firm and they are catching the small shareholders. The small shareholders invested their money at a high premium and were led astray by the original founders of the company who started business under protection. Eventually, it was the man in the job who invested £100 or £200 who was caught. It was not the small shareholders who were in favour of this voluntary liquidation.

The report I have quoted went on to say that Mr. William Cunningham, Chartered Accountant, Dame Street, Dublin, in a statement asked the liquidator to make a contribution to alleviate the hardship of the workers. In the breakup of the firm, the liquidator expected the figure to be £344,947 net. That would be a conservative figure because he could not have valued the factory, the machinery and other things. The Minister's figure provides for only half a week's pay for every year worked instead of a week's pay for every year between the ages of 41 and 65. I now ask the Minister is this £75,000 a grant or is it recoverable from the employees and from employers in the future?

Dr. Hillery

This is taxpayers' money. The Deputy did not get it clearly. This has nothing to do with the redundancy scheme. It is a special grant to deal with a special situation.

Mr. P. Belton

It is not feasible to operate this retrospectively and take them in completely under the Redundancy Bill?

Dr. Hillery

We have been through that several times.

Mr. P. Belton

This firm with the money they made over the years should be asked to pay—whether they do or not is another matter—more than 5 per cent. I would say 10 per cent or 15 per cent, particularly if the amount of money they realise is greater than that which the liquidator forecasts. He forecasts £345,000 in round figures and they are willing to pay 5 per cent. If they got £450,000 surely the Minister should ask them to pay 5 per cent or 10 per cent more. The shareholders, in other words, would have a greater net figure than forecast.

The latter history of this company is very bad. It was formed into a public company and the five shilling shares were sold for ten shillings which meant that the original private company if they sold all their shares would make £300,000 and if they retained 50 per cent they would make £150,000. This £150,000, approximately, was made up of £100,000 cumulative preference shares at £1 each and 600,000 ordinary shares at 5/- each which made up the £250,000. In 1958 there were £60,075 undistributed profits and this increased their capital by £50,000. In other words the shareholders at that time got a bonus share for every three shares they held, that is, the 600,000 shares are now 800,000 shares.

The original owners, the Rawson family, had at this stage 230,000 shares out of these 800,000 shares. I am speaking of the ordinary shares. This is 29 per cent of the ordinary shares which in a public company in practice usually means a controlling interest. They reckon that 25 per cent is a controlling interest here. In England or in a bigger company it is lower. This share capital in 1963 was reduced by its original holders to 60,000 shares. In 1966 those shares dropped to 16,000 shares.

In 1963 the profits made by this company were £99,303 before tax and £52,023 net after tax. This on the investment is 33 per cent return on the money invested, which is no mean return. In other words, the company in three years got their money back pre tax. In this case they made 33 per cent before tax. In 1963 the holding of the original owners of this factory dropped from 230,000 shares to 60,000 shares, which means that they sold when the market was away up at its peak and they made a very good return and good profits. In 1964 they made £105,443 profit before tax. I think the only thing which might have been taken off was the directors' fees of approximately £1,600 to £2,000. The net profit was £56,205, 35 per cent return on capital. I am reckoning the capital at £300,000, although the original capital was £250,000 but there would have been a certain amount of inflation during this period.

In 1955, they made £51,000 before tax and £39,726 after tax, which is 17 per cent of turnover. That is not too bad. They would probably have made more but in most manufacturing industries there is a certain amount of risk capital. That was their first bad year. The particulars for 1967 will not be out until this months as their year ends in September. The figures for 1966 show that their gross profit was approximately £20,000 and their net profit £13,219, that is 6? per cent.

The capital in 1963 and 1964 was outrageous, particularly when you consider that there are people in business in this country who are now under price control. Although workers cannot get an increase in wages, this firm could get 35 per cent and 33 per cent profit in two years. The second thing this firm did, which I thought was one of the worst things any firm could do, was to put out of the national pension scheme for boot and shoe operatives —the only firm in that industry in Ireland to put out of this scheme.

This firm went into liquidation before the Redundancy Bill became law. Their staff were let go without any concern. Many of them had 25 to 35 years service. There is absolutely no doubt that this firm tried to avoid this Redundancy Bill. I want again to quote from the Irish Independent of 17th October, 1967, which stated:

At the shareholders' meeting it was stated that if the resolution to liquidate were deferred until the Redundancy Bill came in it would mean they would have to pay about £30,000 more than the five per cent mentioned in the resolution as compensation.

There is absolutely no doubt that this firm were trying to avoid the Redundancy Bill. The Minister is giving a grant of only £75,000. The grant should be greater. It should be equivalent to the redundancy payments.

The Minister also mentioned that the fire on August 13th closed the women's shoe section. He did not say that section but it was in that section that the fire occurred but the fire was not the reason for closing. There is no doubt about this. It is completely incorrect to state that the fire was the cause of the closure. The children's shoe and sandal department was closed long before this. The fire closed down the whole factory. There were three or four sections still free to work.

During the week starting August 24th and finishing September 1st 5,000 pairs of men's shoes were made in this factory. Therefore, they started closing the factory long before the fire occurred because they could not sell their shoes. After the fire two-thirds of the factory was put into production and in one week they produced 5,000 pairs of shoes.

The workers in that factory would be completely destitute if it were left to Rawsons to help them out. I am afraid if the Government do not give them something, although they are not directly responsible for this, those workers, who have been working for 30 to 35 years in that factory, will not get one penny. This firm right down the line have been trying to get out of giving their workers anything. The workers have now ended up with no pension and no rights. They only get a lump sum after 30 to 35 years. They have tried to get jobs in Dundalk but the manufacturers in the boot and shoe industry are at the moment fully staffed and even if those workers moved down to Cork or Limerick there is very little chance of their gettings jobs again.

The main sufferers in this matter are the workers and the new shareholders. The old shareholders did well. They made a fortune out of this business and they have succeeded in doing it with Government protection. I am not saying the Government knew they were doing it but with Government protection they were doing it. I wonder would the Minister tell us the amount of money given in grants to this company when it was a public company and when it was a private company. This company arrived here in 1932 when their factory at Leicester was doing badly and my information is that they were not pro any Irish worker having a share in this factory. They moved in here under protection and formed a company and they made a killing of at least £150,000 when they formed the public company. They moved on and sold their shares in 1963 and 1964 when their profits were at their highest, selling to small Irish investors. Small Irish investors and small Irish wage-earners got caught up in these things. Since they came in here their employer/employee relationship has been diabolical to say the least of it and they have shown by their attitude at the liquidation meeting and also through the way money was made and the firm was used to make money for people, to make capital profit and get out, that they had no normal interest in the workers whatsoever. Not one of them cared—I am speaking now of the original directors because the newer directors bought on the market to get an income out of it, I presume.

Where a town like Dundalk or even smaller towns have a big industry such as this and a crash comes and there is complete unemployment there is no alternative factory to take the workers as there would be in Dublin, Cork or any of the main cities. I feel, that being the case, that the unions themselves should have bought a number of shares in this company. They would then have had a knowledge of what was happening and would be pre-warned of the various things that were happening the company and would be getting information quickly and not getting it a year later. The funds at the disposal of the trade unions should be invested in companies of this type particularly if it is a big business in a small town. In this way they would know both sides of the business and regulate their members to suit both the industry and the area. In a town of this size you have workers there and the unions get more members to join expecting this factory to continue for ever, whereas if they had a small interest in management or a small shareholding they would know the limitations of the factory.

I want to ask the Minister was there much money given in grants to this factory over the years because if there was a large amount given I feel he should have some control over the money, and if it was given for machinery what chance has he of recovering this machinery or its saleable value? I would also like to know how far the Minister has gone to start a new industry here or for part of the factory to be taken over by some firm. There are rumours going around which I am sure the workers have heard that there is a certain firm in that part of the country taking over a section of it. Has the Minister any idea of this or will he give the travelling allowance under the redundancy legislation to workers who may want to travel to Monaghan, Cork or Limerick to get similar work? Are they entitled to that? Are they entitled to resettlement? I would like the Minister to point out if money was given by the Government, the amount of it, and can be recover any of the money that has been given grantwise if this company goes into voluntary liquidation and does not fulfil its obligations but gets out just to meet the Bill as has been pointed out even at the firm's meeting.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The passage of this Supplementary Estimate through the House reflects, in our opinion, credit on neither the Minister for Labour nor Rawsons of Dundalk—on Rawsons of Dundalk because we see no reason why they should have closed this factory; on the Minister because this legislation should have been brought in many years ago. We have called for its early introduction and the necessity now for passing a Supplementary Estimate in the case of these workers arises because the Minister for Labour did not bring that Bill before the House. Admittedly, there were very important political Party tactic in-fighting matters to be brought before the House like the infamous Marts Bill which were of more importance than some of the human problems raised on redundancy.

The whole thing gives us in a sort of small fashion a crazy example of the kind of situation that continues in this country and that most Deputies in this House subscribe to the continuance of —a crazy system where you have a company situated in Dundalk which came in here in the easy years for industrialists under protection, they make quite a large profit over those easy years in a market guaranteed by tarriffs put up by the community and when the going gets tough they pull out. Nobody believes that the fire which occurred some months ago is sufficient reason for this firm to pack up their tents and go back to Britain. Nobody believes this sufficient reason for them to depart but the whole occurrence should at least, even if we do not subscribe, as people in my Party do, to a fundamental change in this whole private enterprise system and meaningful participation by the State in their boards of management, at least this should give Deputies of this House plenty of material to question some of the things that they appear to have accepted up to the present.

There is now a situation where Rawsons, who received quite an amount of State aid over the years, quite apart from receiving the tariff protection, now decide that it is in the interests of the profits, mark you, of their own majority shareholders to pack up this business. They do not worry about nor consider the fate of the 500 unfortunate human beings in Dundalk who have established families and bought homes on the basis of their jobs in this firm. They are not worried about their future. In fact, we have reached a situation now in which Rawsons directors give their workers, some of whom had service of over 35 years with the firm, a Christmas present of a bye-bye with damn-all else coming with it.

What do Rawsons directors do?

The eternal milch cow, the State, once more carries out the obligations of Rawsons directors to Rawsons workers and these directors, these cannibals—because that is all you can call those human cannibals—who in any other normal community would be put before a trial of people and condemned for this extremely bad anti-social behaviour on their part, leave the shores of this country without a condemnation other than the things some of us here may say. Their relationship with the State throughout has been grants to their firm, tariffs to their firm and when they were going, the State took over and in a meagre way met their obligations to their workers. This is an extraordinary situation. If anybody should pretend to consider that that system is the one most realistically designed to bring this country into any free trade of the future, he has not examined the facts.

If anybody understands in a small way the amount of suspicion or alienation that workers experience in their jobs, he must know that they are merely tools to be kicked about, and discarded when the opportune moment comes. If anybody wishes to understand the origin of this, let him look at Rawsons of Dundalk. There are other cases also. There are many firms in Dublin switching from the technical names of their companies to different names to avoid the small obligation they may have under the Redundancy Bill which will come into operation in January. This is happening throughout the country. We advised the Minister that there should be a registration clause. There have been cases of firms over the past year who have let their workers go. We are suspicious, because we only have cases where workers were let go during this year so that firms will avoid their obligation in January to pay these workers under the Redundancy Bill. One notable case comes to mind, that of Galway Textiles. The workers were let go and one wonders why they could not be covered under the Redundancy Payments Bill.

The workers in Rawsons may be covered under this Bill to some extent but they will not get the same treatment as workers will get next year. They will not get the resettlement allowance and they will not get the repayments. A figure of over £300 is described as the maximum figure to be paid to workers under this Bill. This is a figure to be given to workers with over 35 years service, by way of a Christmas present, with no possibility of an alternative job. We begin to see in its true dimension the unfortunate situation of these working people in Dundalk.

The Minister has to some degree responded in this case and has brought in this Estimate to cover these people but the terms they will get will not be as good as those next year under the main Bill. There has been pressure to bring forward this legislation for some years from the Labour movement, not from the so-called Labour Party opposite. If in the course of the 18th Dáil, we have repeatedly called on the Minister to bring in this Bill, I do not think we can make any move of self-congratulation and say what decent people we are by sharing out £75,000 to Rawsons in Dundalk. If we had been serious in the matter, this Bill would have been operative beforehand and we would not be asking why people cannot be included under this redundancy scheme.

The biggest problem facing these people is that there does not seem to be any likelihood of any alternative work in the town of Dundalk, which is suffering from unemployment. Let us understand that provisions under any redundancy legislation, however generous, are no substitute for a job. The provision in January next will in no way equal that available to our fellows under a Tory Government in Northern Ireland; it is a poor relation of the Bill that will be operating in the Six County area. Let that be understood in the country. We have repeated throughout and what we want understood is that redundancy provisions, however generous, are no substitute for a job. It is jobs, a right to earn their living, the people of Dundalk want. Redundancy legislation, however generous, can only be taken in conjunction with provision of an alternative job and there is no such provision in Dundalk.

Again, I say it is a remarkable thing that a board of directors can get away with the behaviour that Rawsons got away with without being brought before a court, without receiving a severe sentence, from our community. It puts the law in the position that it does not apply in such cases. A man who has not his bicycle lamp lighting at night is brought before the court, but in a case like this, where men are deprived of their work, nothing can be done about it. It is a really good example of the kind of thing we have been hitting at. How can this country face competition in any free trade area when we are depending on units of management like Rawsons of Dundalk?

The attitude of mind of Rawsons is not by any means untypical of many Irish managements. I ask those people is there no way to change the present system for people working in private enterprise. If private enterprise gets grants and carries out its obligations to workers that is the kind of enterprise we believe should not be changed; but Rawsons have been acting in the extreme as selfish animals.

In the Shelbourne Hotel, the shareholders decided to consider only their own financial interests, to ignore the possibilities of the predicament of the 2,500 employees of Dundalk, and decided to lock up shop. There was not sufficient reason given why they should have done so. The firm should have continued and we believe that the State, if it grants money, should be a particular participant before any firm can decide to close shop and depart from the country. If the State gives help to any firm, it should to some extent call the tune.

It is doubtful whether the Minister for Labour is in fact interested in his own job. He has lately departed from what we consider his real responsibilities and has become precisely a political crier. We saw in the past few weeks part of the campaign he is mounting. Is he aware of the immense damage he is doing to the particular job he holds and has he any real interest in carrying out his job? It is extraordinary the way the Minister for Labour has attacked one of the largest employee organisations in the country. If he thinks that bringing politics into his job will help industrial relations in the year ahead, which is promising to be a tough one, he is mistaken. When the Ministry was being set up we pleaded that there should be a neutral man in charge to deal with any delicate situation. In the past few weeks, the Minister has deluded us and has attacked individuals in the employment movement here. There are other individuals in the Government equipped to carry out this job. The role of the Minister is on a higher level than the level to which it was brought down, as I saw, in the past few weeks. There are many Ministers who are better equipped for the position but the Minister for Labour has seen fit to participate in this behaviour in the past few weeks.

This Supplementary Estimate reflects no credit on him. The full provision should have been before this House long before now. It certainly reflects no credit whatever on the directors of Rawsons of Dundalk. The question is: Can we afford a continuance of a situation where shareholders' management can do this in our country with impunity?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht (Mr. Faulkner)

If there is one thing clear to me from the cheap and caustic remarks made here today by Deputy O'Leary about the Redundancy Payments Bill and the Minister for Labour, it is that Deputy O'Leary would very much prefer if this Supplementary Estimate had not been brought before this House at all. It is very obvious that he would very much prefer to be in a position to criticise the Government for having done nothing for the workers of Dundalk. Deputy O'Leary's remarks cannot alter the fact that the Minister has brought a Supplementary Estimate for £75,000 before this House to help the workers in Dundalk.

Whatever may be our personal feelings in regard to the closing of Rawsons, so far as I am concerned— and I am very much closer to this matter than is Deputy O'Leary—I am very perturbed about it and everybody in Dundalk is very perturbed about it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is no bloody use.

Mr. Faulkner

This Supplementary Estimate for a sum of £75,000 is introduced to help the workers concerned. The standing of Deputy O'Leary amongst the workers in Dundalk is very low, in view of his series of questions in relation to this matter over the past number of weeks.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Government should have introduced the Redundancy Payments Bill long before now. The workers of Dundalk would have benefited.

Mr. Andrews

Is the Deputy blaming the Government for the fire that took place there?

Mr. Faulkner

We, who are very close to this problem in Dundalk, are very perturbed about the manner in which this factory was closed. We have explored every avenue to see what we could do in relation to this firm. If there was anything the Government could do, it would have been done. The fact is that the Minister is now introducing a Supplementary Estimate for £75,000 to help the workers of Rawsons factory. On behalf of the workers and on my own behalf, I want to thank the Minister for doing so and particularly for accepting that this was an exceptional case. I have been dealing with the Minister about this matter for some considerable time now. I fully appreciate and the workers in Dundalk fully appreciate the difficulties he faced in having to introduce this Supplementary Estimate as an exceptional measure, particularly when he did not find it possible to make the provision of the Redundancy Payments Bill retrospective.

I do not think anybody can reasonably quibble with the fact that this is an exceptional case. Rawsons was a big industry. It employed a very conabl siderable number of workers. It was established more than 30 years ago. Many of the workers started working with this firm at the very beginning and spent their whole working life there. Suddenly, without any warning, because of a fire, this factory was closed down. One can imagine the consternation of the workers who had every reason to believe they were secure in their employment, on finding themselves suddenly unemployed.

The case was further complicated by the fact that, for a number of reasons, their unemployment benefit did not last very long. I trust that the shareholders of Rawsons will make good their word and make available as quickly as possible the money they have promised to give to the Dundalk workers. The Minister mentioned that he is doing his utmost to have the money now being voted paid before Christmas. I am particularly anxious that that should be done. It should be clear to everybody that the workers are in difficult circumstances and that the quicker this money is paid the better.

With regard to future employment in Dundalk, as everybody is already aware, the Undeveloped Areas Act applies to Dundalk. Already its effects are to be seen in relation to one industry. Rawsons factory was taken over by another boot and shoe company. It is hoped that this will help the unemployed workers of Rawsons. At the moment we are trying to interest an American firm of boot and shoe manufacturers in Dundalk: I trust we shall be successful in this venture. If we are, it can have a very beneficial effect so far as the unemployed Rawsons workers are concerned. The only type of industry that would be of real value at the moment, particularly in relation to these workers, is a boot and shoe industry. Many of them are now in middle age and it would be difficult for them to retrain for other employment.

I should like to pay a tribute to the Irish Shoe and Leather Workers Union for their Trojan efforts on behalf of the workers. It was a pleasure for me to co-operate with them. Ba mhaith liom an tAire a thraoslú as ucht an méid a rinne sé ar son oibritheoirí Dún Dealgan. Is eol dom go mbeidh siad uile buíoch de thar cheann a iarrachtaí ar a son.

Mr. Mullen

I think the Parliamentary Secretary has missed the entire point which Deputy O'Leary was endeavouring to put across. Nobody would be so foolish as to say that we do not welcome the idea of people getting money, even under this Supplementary Estimate. Deputy O'Leary's point is that it should not be necessary to do this and, if people had been doing what they should have been doing, it would not be necessary.

Deputy Faulkner is perturbed. He represents the area. He saw this development. Obviously he was aware of the activities of Rawsons.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What did they do?

Mr. Mullen

He witnessed them accumulating profits, as described by Deputy Belton. Of course, the Tánaiste, Deputy Aiken, also represents this constituency.

Mr. M. O'Leary

In New York.

Mr. Mullen

He is away in New York. He can solve everybody else's problems except those of the people whom he represents. This is the kind of thing we are expected to do but to say nothing about it, to be terribly quiet. In my view, those who represent the workers in Dundalk should be ashamed to see this happening around them and do nothing about it. It was not only the fire that was bad in Rawsons. It was the behaviour of the people who controlled it. Undoubtedly Deputy Faulkner and Deputy Aiken must have been aware of this. What did they do about it?

Deputy Faulkner and Deputy Aiken are answerable to the people in Dundalk who, I am satisfied, will give them their answer at the first available opportunity. Certainly, they will not get away with this kind of thing. Perturbation is expressed by Deputy Faulkner. Why did these people march from Dundalk to Dublin? Why did they find it necessary to demonstrate? Why did they time their march to the shareholders' meeting? Was it not all because of the known behaviour of these same shareholders? I have not seen any evidence that Deputy Faulkner or Deputy Aiken made representations to these people.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputy sees the evidence in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Five hundred people lost their jobs.

Mr. Faulkner

You have representations made in this Estimate.

Mr. Mullen

A sop of £75,000 does not suffice and is not a good excuse to my mind for the neglect of Deputy Faulkner and Deputy Aiken in this matter. It is not their money that is being used here. Steps should have been taken to ensure that the State did not have to pay any money but nothing was done about it.

Reference was made by Deputy Faulkner to questions Deputy O'Leary put down and at the end of his speech Deputy Faulkner complimented the union concerned. He displays how much he was in touch with that particular matter when he ignores the fact that the questions Deputy O'Leary raised, and which were raised in these Benches, were raised at the instigation of that particular union and came from us through the medium of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Mr. Faulkner

That is not correct.

Mr. Mullen

It is and I will prove it. Is the Deputy saying I am telling a lie?

Mr. Faulkner

I am saying it is not correct.

Mr. Mullen

It is correct and I will prove it. I will bring documents and display them in this House if necessary.

Mr. Faulkner

Deputy O'Leary knows whether it is true or not.

Mr. O'Leary

I do.

Mr. Mullen

I know it. For example, I can say that I was asked by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to put down a question in connection with this matter. I did so and I offer no apology to Deputy Faulkner for doing so. Naturally, the union concerned was in touch with the body to which it is attached in regard to the way these people were treated and the way Rawsons were allowed to go on down through the years. Naturally, they tried to get Deputy Faulkner to get assistance if they could not get Deputy Aiken because he was away in New York.

The Minister referred to the decision made at the shareholders' meeting that five per cent of the shares should be put aside and distributed among the workers. The Minister indicated that he has got in touch with the liquidator in regard to this matter with a view to having the liquidator arrange for the people with long service to get this money. I do not know if that is correct. Is it legal to do this? The decision at the shareholders' meeting was that the money would be distributed but it was not stipulated that it should go to all the old hands. I certainly agree with that idea but I am concerned about its practicability. I also want to ascertain if it is the Minister's intention to pursue this point and are we to understand that when it comes to the time for dispensing this money the Minister will have, or endeavour to have, a say in the fulfilment of what he wants to bring about?

Bearing in mind that the unfortunate disaster of the fire brought all this about and also knowing that this Bill provides for the payment of £75,000 I think it is pertinent to ask the Minister if he made any representations to the directors of this company since the fire, or immediately after it, to ascertain from them, having regard to the "kill" they made down through the years, if they were disposed to giving any money. As regards the decision taken at the shareholders' meeting I should like to know if it was put up to those people that they should do the right thing?

One thing that is certainly highlighted in this whole matter is the necessity for the Minister to amend the Redundancy Payments Bill as soon as possible for the purpose of ensuring that there will be no repetition of this happening and that in a case of this kind in future the workers concerned will not be left to the whim of the board of directors or to an after-thought on the part of a Minister at the instigation of a group of people who got around the Minister to try to claim political kudos for bringing about the right thing. Obviously the Minister should amend the Bill to ensure that people who make such a "kill" as Rawsons did will be required to make substantial payments to employees when they fold up in circumstances such as Rawsons did and that such payment will be independent of the benefits workers would be entitled to under the Redundancy Bill.

I appreciate the point the Minister has made about the retrospective aspect of the matter. On these benches we know that we urged the Minister when he was putting the Redundancy Bill through this House that he should begin at some date earlier than 1st January because we were conscious that there had been a number of cases where workers had been declared redundant and because of the date being in the future, they would not be included. We were also aware that in a number of cases the employers knowing that the Redundancy Bill was on the stocks sheltered behind it and used it as an excuse to avoid payment. We recently had a case of this kind in the city, not far away from this building, and we had the employer concerned blandly telling those union representatives: "We will not close until next January and because of that the workers will get redundancy payments." This indicates that a number of people had that idea fixed in their minds, that that is all they should give. In other words, the minimum benefits in the Bill are becoming the maximum in the employers' minds.

Is it too late to ask the Minister, bearing in mind the disaster of the fire at Rawsons, as he described it — and which it was in many ways — and bearing in mind that it occurred in August, to do something for people, whether in large or small numbers, who were declared redundant since August of this year and for whom nothing was done, people who have not got a Tánaiste in their area who required that sort of face-saving?

I know of a case where we had a former Taoiseach in the area. I am referring to the Wicklow Hotel which closed down only this month and the workers concerned got no redundancy payments. The union concerned is chasing the former owner and trying to get him to make some contribution to people with 30, 40, or 50 years service. But there is nothing doing so far. The latest explanation we got for his inability to meet the union was that he was held up in England owing to foot and mouth disease.

Here we have a group of workers, approximately 70, who did not get a penny piece after giving all their time in the Wicklow Hotel. The hotel just beat the Redundancy Bill. Surely that is a disaster. One wonders that a match was not put to the place. If that had happened it would have been called a disaster, redundancy brought about by fire. Happening the other way, it does not seem to pay out.

In conclusion, I suppose that the Minister will say that he cannot make any more exceptions but it is hard to explain that to people who find themselves caught up in this bad treatment Bill, that is, putting people off hoping and getting nothing. We cannot easily explain to people who have been laid off in June or May or at the beginning of the year why the Rawson people are being paid when they were laid off in August. I do not want anyone to misunderstand my attitude towards this Estimate. I am glad somebody has found it possible to arrange to give money to these people before Christmas. However, I deplore that it had to be done this way. We should take a lesson from this and take steps to ensure that there is no repetition of this by providing a penalty in the redundancy payments legislation to catch every one of those who are setting out to do the wrong thing.

I should like the Minister to take the opportunity when he is replying to indicate what are the prospects of getting employment for those 500 people in Rawsons. He does not say anything about it in his Bill, and Deputy Faulkner referred to the problem only in a brief way. I do not expect him to go into any detail, but we have heard the rumours and speculation that are in circulation; numerous people have said that these Americans are just around the corner, that they are looking at the place and so on. Can the Minister give this House an indication as to what progress, if any, his Department have made in this matter? Have they made any serious or fruitful efforts to provide employment for any of the 500 people concerned? Apart from giving them this dole for Christmas, which I am satisfied will be most welcome to them, can the Minister say whether any number of them will be employed early in the New Year? Can he colour the story a little better by indicating that some of them have already been employed? I presume I am correct in saying that having obtained this employment they will not be debarred from this compensation, and that they do not have to remain redundant to get the benefit of this compensation.

Dr. Hillery

No.

Mr. Mullen

Some of them may have taken on a job. They will still get the compensation?

Dr. Hillery

Yes.

Mr. Moore

I have very little to say on this Bill, but despite the carping criticism of Deputy O'Leary, I think the Minister deserves credit for having introduced this Estimate which will be a help to the Dundalk workers who lost their jobs. Having said that, I should like to ask some questions about this firm. I am not very well briefed on the background to it, but there are certain questions which come to the mind of even the least instructed Deputy. First of all, was the fire thoroughly investigated? It seems very strange that a firm should fold up shortly after a fire. I am quite sure they got a hefty sum of insurance as a result of this occurrence, and I should like to know what has happened to it. I should like to see this money being utilised to start a new industry or the continuation of a viable footwear industry in the factory. I do not deplore the fact that these people got grants over the years. I imagine the money helped to keep the workers in employment in this firm.

Mr. P. Belton

They robbed the people.

Mr. Moore

The point is that their action in clearing out when they did must stand condemned by everybody. The Minister has taken whatever steps he could in order to help the workers in Dundalk who are so badly affected, and I am sure these workers do appreciate the Minister's concern for their future and for their present circumstances. I wonder have any steps been taken by the employment exchange to try to place workers in comparable employment in other centres and have inducements been offered to any of them to leave Dundalk if they so wish. No matter what payment is made by way of redundancy, a man wants to work.

This Estimate raises many matters, because in this city we have some motor trade workers who are badly affected not by a firm closing down but by the fact that a firm extended so much that it absorbed a second firm, and the workers in the second firm have become redundant. Is there any way of giving these men something for Christmas? The Dundalk man will have a happier Christmas thanks to the foresight of the Minister for Labour.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister for External Affairs.

Mr. Moore

I wish Deputy O'Leary would stop making these stupid interjections. One must deplore his carping criticisms here this evening. When he came to the House first he was looked upon as someone who would have some contribution to make, but now he is merely a complete bore, and even his own trade union is losing faith in him, as shown on a recent occasion.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy is talking through his hat.

Mr. Moore

I am only telling the truth, and Deputy O'Leary will learn more of the truth very shortly.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Do not throw stones at your own class.

Mr. Moore

I am not throwing stones at my own class. You are going to get another big shake-up soon. Deputy Faulkner suggested the Deputy was sorry this was being brought in. I do not like repeating this thing but is he disappointed the Minister has come to the rescue of the Dundalk workers?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Redundancy Bill should have been in operation.

Mr. P. Belton

He has not come sufficiently to the rescue.

Mr. Moore

The Bill is here now.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It should have been there before now.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy's attitude shows he is disappointed it is here. Deputy Belton said it is not sufficient. The Minister is the one who has taken some action to give the men in Dundalk some help. The Minister's attitude in presenting this measure here shows he is concerned about the present circumstances of these workers. Deputy O'Leary has no duty in this. The Minister has a duty and he has done it.

Mr. P. Belton

Why does the Minister not extend it completely into the Redundancy Bill whereby they would have an allowance every week?

Mr. Moore

The Deputy knows that the Minister cannot make a Bill retrospective.

Mr. P. Belton

He could bring in an amendment.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy's Party would call it unconstitutional.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore should be allowed to make his speech. We cannot have this question-and-answer discussion.

Mr. Moore

We do hope the Minister will be able to extend help to the motor trade workers whom I mentioned. The Minister also has a duty to probe further into this matter and find out what the Rawson directors have done with the insurance money they have collected and see if this money can be seized and given to the workers as extra compensation.

Mr. Dowling

This is a very human problem and it has been dealt with in a very human way by the Minister for Labour. I can well understand Deputy O'Leary's anxiety on seeing the Supplementary Estimate being introduced to benefit these workers. Maybe it is not enough but, to my mind, workers can never get enough, and this applies to the unfortunate workers who lost their jobs in this firm. I should like to know myself and I would ask the question of other Deputies, if, in fact, Rawsons have jumped the gun. Earlier in the year we said here that if the Minister had concrete evidence that a firm was jumping the gun in relation to redundancy payments, they would be made toe the line. If Rawsons have done so in this case, their shareholders should be made toe the line and the commitment should be met in full. I do not know whether this is a fact or not. Like many others, I am somewhat in the dark in relation to the question of the shareholders and the restarting of the concern after the fire. A thorough investigation should be made into this.

Although we have very good employers in this country, we have some unscrupulous employers who will use every loophole to get out of their responsibilities to their workers. We have been conscious of this problem over the years and many Bills have been introduced here by Ministers of Fianna Fáil Governments to enable us get away from the situation whereby we had sweated labour and other problems. These problems were solved to a large degree. Now the Minister has indicated that the Conditions of Employment Act is to be examined to see if other improvements can be made so that workers will get that to which they are entitled.

This Estimate is an expression in concrete terms of the Government's desire to assist workers who, through unfortunate circumstances, are thrown on the labour market. It is being done in the only way possible, by a Supplementary Estimate. The question of whether or not it should have been introduced at an earlier stage is another matter. It is being done now. As they have done in the past and as they will do in the future, the Government, recognising the need for action to solve problems concerning the Irish worker, have taken the necessary action. They have brought about a situation which the bulk of the workers have accepted as a real contribution. The only Party who have ever brought in any measure to assist the worker have been the Fianna Fáil Party. On this occasion the Minister has made a genuine effort to ease the situation. As he said, when you read his speech in relation to redundancy payments, you know his views and the views of the Government on these payments.

I do not blame Deputy O'Leary for being perturbed about the fact that the workers are receiving payments. As long as Deputy O'Leary can keep the workers in a state of discontent, his organisation will flourish. The members of the Labour Party are like political market gardeners who have a cartload of carrots and are dishing them out all over the country. They have been doing this for years and this year above all other years. But the workers do not fall for carrots all the time. They may take them for a time but then they come back to the Party they know, the Party they respect and the Party concerned for their rights. Deputy Belton and Deputy O'Leary spoke about what should be done. What did they do when they were in power? They did not bring in a Redundancy Payments Bill. When they deliberately kicked workers out of employment, they did not give them very much redundancy pay and the trade union leaders and the Labour Party backed them up.

Now something concrete is being done and will be done to meet any situation that deserves consideration by the Fianna Fáil Party. They will continue to contribute just as they have in the past when workers were deliberately kicked out of employment by some trade union officials during the period Fine Gael and the Labour Party were in power. You brought in no legislation when you were in power. Now you are concerned that you cannot keep the workers in a state of discontent.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I was only going to school then.

Mr. Dowling

It is a pity you did not stay there another while. You might have more manners when dealing with Ministers and other people. The main emphasis of the speech of the Labour Deputies was to make disparaging remarks about the two Louth Deputies, the Tánaiste and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht. The Parliamentary Secretary did an exceptionally good job and plugged this matter on every possible occasion. He went out of his way to see that everything that could be done would be done. I know the members of the Labour Party have a right to feel perturbed. Deputy O'Leary pointed his finger over here and referred to "the so-called Labour Party". It is not a question of being so-called; we are the only Labour Party.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You have a good Taca branch.

Mr. Dowling

It is a pity you did not learn a little more about what happened in the forties and fifties when the Labour Party and Fine Gael were in power.

Mr. P. Belton

What has this got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Dowling

The Labour Party's choice for this constituency you are so terribly concerned about might not have been so great, because the man you put forward during the last election was kicked out by you at a later stage. It is probably a good job he was not elected. The man you put forward you decided to kick out later as being no good. I think the two men who represent the area have done a good job. The Tánaiste is not the only one missing from this House. A Labour Deputy was missing for 18 months.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Sickness.

Mr. Dowling

There are problems in the area he represents, and well I know it. Do not talk too loud about who should be here and when they should be here. It is an involved situation when you go into it as deeply as you possibly have. There are many more things that could be said in regard to representation in this House.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has dealt with this problem and met the workers. I do not consider the workers have got all they are entitled to, but that is because of the set-up in Rawsons in relation to jumping the gun, which I hope the Minister will investigate. We got a promise that, if the gun was being jumped by management, a full investigation would take place to ensure the workers got what they were entitled to. This is a very human problem and it is being tackled in the only way possible. I hope these people will find new employment in the future. I am sure that the Government in their endeavour to attract new industry will attract industry to this area in order to ease the position of the workers there. I hope this will be done at an early stage so that there will be no undue suffering by those workers. I am sure they are well aware that their problems are understood. I only hope that, if there is a division on this tonight, Deputy O'Leary will vote in favour of the motion necessary to make the money available. I hope he will not vote against it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Of course, I will.

Mr. Dowling

You would like to vote against it but you will probably have to vote for it. A vicious attack was made on the Minister and you said what you considered he should say, and you said what you considered he should not say. What you considered — who do you think you are at all?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I thought this was the Dáil.

Mr. Dowling

One gentleman who is concerned with this organisation spoke on behalf of all the members of this great organisation, but he had no right to speak on behalf of them. The bulk are members and supporters of our organisation, Fianna Fáil, and he had no right to speak for them.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Have you become a trade unionist?

Mr. Dowling

I am not a buttonhole trade unionist. They do not have to pay me to be a trade unionist.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Some are more equal than others.

Mr. Dowling

They do not have to give me a badge to put in my buttonhole. I do not have to go to Moscow to find out what I am. I was always a trade unionist and no one can speak on my behalf unless I give him the authority to do so.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You are discussing tourism now.

Mr. Dowling

You had a few tours there this year. I wonder who paid for them? They were paid for in either of two ways.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You seem to be worried.

Mr. Dowling

I am not worried. I have always worried about the workers and their problems. This was paid for in either of two ways. Either the Reds invited you, or it was paid out of union funds.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You are about 20 years out of date.

Mr. Dowling

That is what you think.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dowling

As I said already, you are like political market gardeners offering carrots to the workers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Are they vegetarians?

Mr. Dowling

You have a big stock where you work. They can be seen sticking out the windows at times. We are not providing carrots but something practical to alleviate this distress. We are sorry this happened. We know a full investigation will be made into the question of management responsibility. With my colleague, Deputy Moore, I am concerned that the necessary machinery will be put into operation in order to ensure that commitments are fully met, and that the workers will not be left wanting for something to which they are entitled.

Dr. Hillery

There was a risk that the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate for one company would bring down upon our heads all the matters that have been raised. This was something that might have discouraged me from taking action to help the workers in this particular case, since I could clearly anticipate what would be said and the pressures which would be put upon me on this occasion. However, I thought it worthwhile to come to the Dáil and allow the discussion which would inevitably take place if, at the end of it, I got from the Dáil £75,000 for the workers in Rawsons.

The discussion seems to have followed two main lines: one, what should have been, and the other what might have been. I have to deal with the facts, and the facts of life are that whatever form of social structure, or whatever form of control, could be applied to our industrialisation programme without bringing it to a halt or interfering with employment, does not change the situation which exists in regard to the Rawson organisation. Talking about systems of society will not help the workers in any way. Since it is left in the hands of the shareholders of the Rawson factory to decide whether to pay this five per cent, I should prefer not to condemn them roundly but to encourage them to pay this money to the workers. I hope they will not be discouraged by the harshness of some of the remarks made here. It would be no consolation to the workers if they lost money for the sake of a theoretical change in society.

The other line taken was what might have been if the redundancy scheme had been brought into operation at an earlier date, or made retrospective. The delay in preparing the scheme and the legislation — and there was delay — was due mainly to the wide degree of consultation, and patient consultation, with the trade unions and the employers' organisations, and to other factors. This could have been avoided if I had come in here with a Bill and said: "This is the way it will be done regardless of anyone." I took the view that we should consult the trade unions and the employers' organisations.

I can tell the House, as I said before, that we got very full co-operation, and that a great deal of time and energy was devoted by the representatives of the trade unions and the employers in getting together as near as was possible. We got co-operation on the same lines in the Dáil, and the Bill has now been passed. I told the House before the Summer recess that if I got general permission then to go ahead with the administrative arrangements necessary in anticipation of the passing of the legislation, I would have a scheme in operation on the 1st January.

By the device of anticipating the passing of the Bill with the permission of the House we are able to have the scheme on the same date as if the legislation had been taken at the time the Marts Bill was passed. I explained all this before and I do not think it necessary to explain it again.

On the question of "jumping the gun" in relation to the scheme, in the specific case of Rawsons the estimate which I have been able to make — and I do not say this from the point of view of trying to defend anything in the company's behaviour except in relation to what they would pay — is that if the scheme were in operation their commitment would be about £30,000. It was recommended to the company's shareholders to pay five per cent and, depending on the value of the assets and so on, I expect the figure to be between £20,000 and £30,000. I intend to keep in touch with the situation and to help in any way to get a good sum for the workers.

As regards instances of "jumping the gun" I should like to have details of all the cases where this is considered to have taken place. I have had a few specific complaints because I asked for them and I have had investigations made. I have not found that the people involved were acting in this irresponsible way. If widespread "jumping of the gun" is taking place, this House should legislate to do something about it but I would require to have supporting evidence.

The £75,000 in this Supplementary Estimate is the taxpayers' money and it is very necessary, therefore, to justify helping one case and not doing the same for all others. If you give retrospection for one month, what about the people who became redundant two months ago? Some of the examples given in the House went back to June and others went back to April. No matter how far back you go there will always be a group of people excluded by the commencement date. Every bit of social legislation put through this House has had an excluding effect on some people because of the commencement date. We have to face that.

The money being provided here is not, of course, the total answer to the shocking catastrophe which visited 500 workers and their families suddenly and unexpectedly by reason of a fire. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has informed An Foras Tionscal that he wished to declare Dundalk an area in respect of which the Board of An Foras Tionscal should for a period of 12 months exercise their powers under section 2 of the Industrial Grants Act, 1963. In effect, this will mean in the case of a suitable undertaking proposed for establishment in Dundalk that the maximum grant can be two-thirds towards the cost of the factory site, site development, factory buildings, machinery, et cetera. This concession should prove a most useful asset in attracting industry to Dundalk.

Deputies will have seen recent press announcements that one positive project for the Dundalk area is expected to provide substantial employment and also that a local firm in the shoe manufacturing business has taken over the Rawson premises. The possibility of introducing a new shoe manufacturing firm is also being actively pursued. Deputies can rest assured that, whatever the Government can do to bring employment to this area, as to other areas, it will be done.

I feel I should thank the liquidator of the Rawson company here, not only for his personal interest in getting something done for the workers, but for his willingness in furnishing at very short notice various details which were needed by the officers of my Department, such as the details of employment records required to make the assessment of the compensation payable in individual cases. I very much appreciate his courtesy and co-operation.

I should like to pay tribute, as Deputy Faulkner has done, to the manner in which the trade union concerned has pursued its representations on behalf of the Rawson workers. It presented the workers' case in a very forceful way and yet in a way that permitted the Government to take action, and that is more than I can say about other methods used to influence governments from time to time.

I hardly need to mention the efforts made by An Tánaiste and Deputy Faulkner. They have been referred to already by Members of the House.

The question of the part played by the Employment Service in helping the workers to find new jobs was raised. I understand from the union concerned that considerable assistance has been given by the Employment Service of the Department of Labour to the workers involved. Indeed, I have had tribute paid to the staff in Dundalk for the way in which they have tried to help. They have not any means of creating employment suddenly for people who suddenly come to look for it but they have succeeded in placing some of the workers. I understand that about 70 workers have been placed in employment. This, of course, does not take from the entitlement of these workers to payment of a lump sum.

Much of what Deputy Belton had to say is not for me to comment on. I should hope that we are not fossilised in our minds about the structure of our society and what we will have to do for it in our time but I have had to deal with the situation which exists for 500 workers and their families in society as it is today.

Deputy Belton did ask about the grants paid to Rawsons. They were paid an adaptation grant of £3,500. I do not know if I need to go into the merits or not of giving adaptation grants. The purpose is to make firms adapt to meet conditions of competition.

Mr. P. Belton

They collected only £1,000 of that.

Dr. Hillery

The information I have from the Department of Industry and Commerce is that the firm got a grant of £3,500.

Mr. P. Belton

They got no capital or new industrial grant or anything like that?

Dr. Hillery

No, only an adaptation grant.

Mr. P. Belton

£1,000 is all they took of that.

Dr. Hillery

Finally, I might welcome Deputy Belton to the discussion in the calm waters of the Front Bench. I hope he will be as good as his predecessor.

Mr. P. Belton

The figure the Minister mentioned — £40,000 — due from Rawsons——

Dr. Hillery

About £30,000.

Mr. P. Belton

According to the liquidator's figures, net assets will be £344,937.

Dr. Hillery

Under the Redundancy Act, the employer pays the redundancy lump sum and can claim back from the Redundancy Fund, depending on the amount of notice given, up to 65 per cent, but 50 per cent in any case. What I was talking about was the amount they would have to pay having got their recoupment from the Fund.

Mr. P. Belton

They said at their shareholders' meeting that they would pay five per cent of the assets. Five per cent of £344,937 is £17,000, not £30,000.

Dr. Hillery

The Chairman estimated it at £20,000, I understand.

Mr. P. Belton

Approximately, but it could be £30,000. It could be more. What he expects is a very conservative estimate.

Dr. Hillery

All I can say is that the workers will be getting £75,000 from us, if the Dáil votes it, and I hope what was said will not discourage the shareholders from giving more.

Mr. P. Belton

What I said referred to older shareholders.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.