asked the Minister for Communications the total amount paid from the Exchequer in ex-gratia payments to former employees of Irish Shipping; the number of workers who received payments; the average payment made to each worker; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Shipping.
6.
As I have already indicated in response to previous Questions, pensioners of Irish Shipping Limited who were in receipt of ex-gratia payments from the company at the time of its liquidation have since had these ex-gratia payments taken up and paid by the Exchequer. The number of pensioners involved at the outset was 45. The total amount paid up to 30 November 1986 is £125,752. The amounts involved range from £4.50 to £784.25 per month.
The terms of the question were not properly framed but I understood the Minister would cover the payments made to workers under various headings — redundancy, ex-gratia payments for pensioners and so on. That was the intention of my question. The Minister has confined his reply to 45 pensioners, 10 per cents of the employees.
Has the Deputy a question?
What are the legal constraints previously mentioned by the Ministers which allegedly prevent the Government from paying adequate compensation to these employees who have given tremendous service to the State and who lost their jobs? They would be ex-gratia payments as I understand them.
All the former employees of Irish Shipping Limited who made application for statutory redundancy payments have received their redundancy and other statutory entitlements from the Department of Labour. I concentrated on one aspect of this question because I thought the Deputy was referring to what is technically known as ex-gratia payments. The cost of statutory payments to date is approximately £638,000 and I understand this represents the bulk of the payments to be made. As regards the extra-statutory redundancy payments, the Government have re-examined the situation in great detail and with the utmost sympathy for those affected but, despite all this, it has not been found possible to overcome the legal and other constraints which stand in the way of extending such assistance. I have been advised by the Attorney General that it is not wise to go into the nature of these legal and other constraints but they do create an insurmountable difficulty as far as the Government are concerned in giving any further payments. The matters has been examined from every possible angle and no resolution of the problem has come to light which does not have major adverse implications for the State. I am sorry I have to say that I do not see any way out of this unfortunate situation.
The Minister said that for one reason or another he is unable to explain what specifically these legal constraints are. Could the concern he says the Government feel, and which presumably the Minister also feels, not be expressed by appropriate legislation to get rid of these legal constraints in order that the Government may be able to honour their obligations to these employees? If there are legal contraints which prevent the Government from doing something they want to do, then surely the obvious answer would be——
A question please.
Would the Minister not agree that the obvious way to get around this would be to introduce legislation?
On several occasions the Government have considered the position of the former employees of Irish Shipping Limited and all possible types of approach which might be made, but, regrettably, as the Minister has already indicated a number of times, it has not been possible to overcome these legal and other constraints——
Even on an ex-gratia payment?
No. ——which prevents the extension of Exchequer assistance to those affected. I regret I have to repeat this in the House today. The Deputy used rather odd phraseology — that the Government were concerned and presumably the Minister was concerned. Everyone feels concern for these former employees but unfortunately it is not possible to do anything for them.
In view of the fact that this was a wholly owned State company and that payments above the statutory level were made to Avoca, NET, some private companies like Verolme Dockyard and so on, could the Minister not see his way to do the right thing for these workers who were never involved in industrial disputes, who served the country over a long period and who were left with payments as low as £4.50 a month, as the Minister had the effrontery to mention to the House?
The Deputy misinterpreted what I said. I said the ex-gratia payments for the pensioners ranged from £4.50 a month. Dealing with the redundancy issue, this is not the same as paying above the odds to other companies——
To Avoca, for example?
That is not the issue here. If it were, it would be possible to consider various payments.
If the liquidation proceedings were over, would it then be possible for this House to legislate? If not, why not? There are no shackles on this House as far as legislation is concerned.
I regret I cannot go beyond what I have said — legal and other constraints prevent the extension of Exchequer assistance to those people.
I am going to allow a short question from Deputy Brennan, Deputy Owen and then I am moving to the next question.
Deputy Mac Giolla rose.
We cannot have a debate on this. Deputy Mac Giolla has a style of his own. Every time he stands to ask a question, he makes a speech.
Considering the gross error of judgment when the Government decided to close Irish Shipping, with over £70 million being paid out against a promised £50 million——
I hope Deputy Brennan does not adopt the same style.
Would the Minister not consider bringing in legislation, as requested by Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy Wilson, considering the legal advice he got in the past that a receiver was not possible when it now turns out that it would have been possible to appoint a receiver if a one line Bill had been introduced? This would have saved Irish Shipping. Would the Minister not take the advice of this House and introduce a similar Bill to enable redundancy payments to be made?
The cost of possible liquidation was in the region of £51 million and if we had not liquidated the company it would have cost £220 million. They are the facts. On the very serious issue of the employees, I regret I cannot go beyond what I have already said.
Deputy Mac Giolla rose.
I will allow Deputy Mac Giolla to ask a question if he confines himself to a question.
Is the Minister aware that even after two years there are still former employees who have not received even their statutory redundancy payments? Would he give an assurance to the House that he will immediately approach the receiver to ensure that those people, at the very least, get what they are entitled to?
I understand the bulk of the payments have been made.
Yes, not all.
Redundancy is paid by the Department of Labour and if there are any problems in that area perhaps the Deputy would bring them to my attention and I will pass them to the Department of Labour.
What circumstances prevent the Minister from telling the House the "legal and other constraints"? If he cannot give the legal constraints, can he give the other constraints?
I regret I cannot go beyond that because I understand that if I did I could create difficulties.
Why cannot the Minister go beyond that? That is all I want to know.
I have been fair——
It is only fair that the Minister explain what is going on.
The Deputy will have to find another way to do it.
Is it in order for the Minister to mention a figure of £200 million in this House when the Official Report of 14 November 1984 clearly says that it would require £108 million to keep the company going?
I am calling Question No. 7.
That is what the Minister told the House.
Will the Minister answer to know if it is in order——
On a point of order, I want to know if it is in order——
That is not a point of order and the Deputy knows that.
The figure of £108 million is mentioned in the official record and the Minister told the House it is £200 million.
The Deputy is out of order.
Will the Minister comment on that? There is a difference of £92 million.
The Deputy is now making a speech. Will the Minister answer Question No. 7 please?