The definition in the Principal Act refers to a sweepstakes committee. Will the Minister define who it is intended will act on this committee and give a brief outline of the role of this committee as I do not have a copy of the 1930 Act in front of me?
Public Hospitals (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
I presume the Deputy is referring to section 1 (1), line 27?
Yes.
Prior to 1933 the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1930, was the Sweepstakes Act. It provided for a committee to manage sweepstakes, submit schemes to the Minister for Justice, who could modify them before approval, and for the deposit by the committee of funds to the value of the prizes in the names of trustees, any such sum remaining after the payment of prizes to go to the person who provided the deposit.
Is the committee still in being? I was trying to establish the working relationship of this. I take it that the trustees are being disbanded and, therefore, I was wondering what was the role of this committee, if any.
There is no committee in being at this time by virtue of the fact that the sweepstakes went into liquidation. The funds remain and it is our job to disburse them as a result of this Bill being passed.
As we know, the Hospital Sweepstakes went into liquidation. Why did this unclaimed prize money not form part of the proceeds of the liquidation and why did the liquidator not have access to it?
The prize money is completely separate. In the original Act which set up the sweepstakes, the legislation provided for a guarantee that the prize money would be, first, secured and, second, separate. Consequently it could not be put into the liquidation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Sherlock. Amendment No. 2 is an alternative and No. 3 is related. It is suggested therefore for discussion purposes that we take amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.—(1) The Minister shall consult with the trade union or staff association representing the former employees of the company which was incorporated on the 6th day of May, 1940, as the Hospitals Trust (1940) Ltd., and shall then make regulations providing for disposal of the undistributed sweepstake prize funds in respect of the service of such former employees.
(2) Where it is proposed to make regulations under subsection (1) the Minister shall lay a draft of each regulation before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and it shall not come into effect until such time as a motion approving the draft has been approved by each such House.
As we know, section 3 is the kernel of the Bill. When I spoke on Second Stage I expressed my party's serious concern that this section was very vague and loosely framed. For instance, as drafted, there is no guarantee that all the employees who were made redundant when the company was placed in voluntary liquidation will be covered. On the other hand, a loose interpretation of it could mean that employees who left 20 years ago or more and who were not victimised by being made redundant or losing pension rights could benefit. Essentially the Minister is asking us to give him a blank cheque. He is asking the Dáil to approve in principle the distribution of the money without the House having any say in the detail. On the basis of this Government's record I do not believe we should extend the trust implied in giving a blank cheque. The Minister must have decided in general terms on the manner in which he intends to distribute the surplus funds. Why has he not included in the Bill at least a general outline of his scheme for the distribution of the funds?
My amendment requires the Minister to put his plans into specific form through the making of regulations which would then be brought back to the Dáil for approval. This would mean the Dáil would be approving not just the general principle of the scheme but also the detail. If we do not pass this amendment the Dáil will have no further say in the matter if the Minister's proposals prove unfair or unreasonable. The Workers' Party amendment would also oblige the Minister to consult with the trade union or staff association which represented the former employees. My understanding is that some of the workers were represented by the FWUI, as it was then, and some by the staff association. It would clearly not be a practical proposition to require the Minister to consult with all the employees but it seems an entirely reasonable proposition that he should at least consult with the union or staff association before finalising his plans. If this was done speedily and the regulations were drawn up without any further delay, the whole process could be completed in time for Christmas, which would be the ideal arrangement. For that reason I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
I am very much in sympathy with what Deputy Sherlock has said. The amendment he is proposing and amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in my name are different methodologies to achieve the same objective. On Second Stage I indicated a very strong welcome from the Labour Party for the Bill. It is a belated recognition that the employees of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes were very badly treated and that they need some redress from the very bad situation that resulted, partly from the direct action of the State in constituting the national lottery. There was a responsibility there which is now finally being met.
I have had a lot of consultations with former employees since the Bill was enacted and there is certainly a fear that section 3, which is simply an enabling section which gives all authority to the Minister to dispose of the money as he shall determine, is too bold a proposition to allow it to pass unamended. The specific objective I had in framing the two amendments in my name is twofold: first, to ensure that those employees who were thrown out of work at the collapse of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes and who received only statutory entitlement and nothing else, would be the ones who would primarily benefit from the money that is now available. A number of former employees took voluntary redundancy much earlier and they received very considerable severance pay, twice or three times the provision made by statute, and some also got guarantees of work subsequently, of up to 13 weeks per year. It was felt that they should not be treated as generously as the 147 employees who were put out of a job on the last day and received basically their statutory entitlements and no more.
The objective of amendment No. 2 in my name is to require the Minister, when he is drawing up his proposals to dispose of this money, to have particular regard to those former employees who received only statutory redundancy at the termination of their employment. I know the Minister indicated to me in the Dáil and in conversation that that was his intention, but it is important to stitch it into the legislation so that it is a clear signal to the employees that they are going to get a reasonable amount of money. At the end of the day the sum of money we are talking about is extremely small. It will amount to less than £3,000 per employee. It will not make any of them prosperous but it is money they should have as soon as possible. The notion of trying to do a loaves and fishes on it, to allow everybody who was ever employed by the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes to have a few shillings, would really negative the principle involved in bringing the legislation before the House in the first instance. I hope the Minister will indicate clearly that he accepts not only the principle but the actual amendment in my name, and that he will enshrine it in the legislation, thus allaying any fears that the former employees may have.
Amendment No. 3 in my name, seeks to accomplish my second objective, that is the principle I referred to on Second Stage, that the money the employees would get, small as it is, should not be the subject of clawback by way of income tax through the Revenue Commissioners. I am advised that if the money is treated legally as payments in respect of section 114 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, any amount up to £6,000 would be tax free. It would simply be regarded as severance pay in the normal way. If you do not enshrine that specifically in the legislation you are at the mercy of the Revenue Commissioners to take a benign view of it, and that is not good enough. I discussed this matter with the Minister for Health after the Second Stage debate and I do not think he would be at variance with my view on it, that it should be a bonus payment, regarded as a very belated severance pay, and should not be subject to the clawback of income tax. That is what amendment No. 3 seeks to do. It is a matter for debate whether there is greater merit in the specifics in relation to The Workers' Party amendments or mine. The two things that concern me about Deputy Sherlock's amendment is that there will be a requirement on the Minister to consult the trade union or staff associations representing the workers. However, having consulted them, there is no responsibility on him to act on their advice. There is, however, a requirement that the regulations subsequently drawn up must be approved by the House but if the Minister decides to ignore the advice of the staff representatives, he could have the regulations approved by the House by way of the natural Government majority. To achieve what we both seek, it would be better to have the requirement that the Minister should have particular regard to those who were left high and dry on the day the company closed and the specific issue of having the windfall severance payment tax free.
Assuming that The Workers' Party amendment is passed, would it be possible for me to insert my amendment No. 3 subsequently? It would still be germane to the Bill that any money to be disposed of to the former employees should be tax free.
I support the sentiments and the contents of these amendments so far as they seek to press the Minister — or the Minister of State — to a proper process of consultation. I am aware that on Second Stage the Minister said this would be the case. However, the point Deputy Sherlock made in relation to this House having some role in the monitoring of subsequent events is valid and should be considered.
I should like to raise a number of points in relation to the position of former employees, numbering about 650. They fall into two categories: first, those who were in full-time employment at the time of the liquidation. There was a very strong dispute about the ex gratia payments they were to receive and this went to the Labour Court. I should like the Minister to outline the cost of the Labour Court award and whether it would use up all the £480,000 at the Minister's disposal under this legislation. What would then be left over? There is a very strong obligation on the Minister to uphold the Labour Court recommendation in regard to ex gratia payments. I feel so strongly about it that I should like the Minister to clarify the situation in relation to the proceeds of the sale of the property in Ballsbridge because, as we know, this was a particularly valuable asset of the Trust Board and I cannot see why some of the proceeds could not be diverted for the benefit of former employees.
I should also like the Minister to clarify whether the subsequent legislation introduced to protect employees in terms of their rights in the event of a liquidation came too late. If it had been passed in time would it have meant that some of the proceeds of that sale could have gone to former employees? That is a very important point and every step should be taken to see that all ex gratia entitlements are paid.
The second category of former employees which deserve recognition are those who worked their whole lives for the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. I am aware — in common with other Members — that the level of superannuation pensions from the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes is derisory which means that people have to survive on non-contributory pensions. There must be some case for such pensioners receiving payment. Therefore, the proceeds fall into two categories; pensioners who have duly qualified for a pension should get an ex gratia sum which would arise from the proceeds of what was basically the Labour Court recommendation for the 147 workers. I have received letters from pensioners who were not full-time employees at the time, but who maybe gave 30 years' service, who feel they have a prospect of a windfall but it is not at all clear whether they will qualify.
The other point I should like to make in relation to this section is that there is no time limit in relation to how long it will take the Minister to dispose of these funds. There should be a time limit of certainly not more than one year. Other Deputies made points in relation to this House having no control and this matter should not be left open-ended. The provisions of section 7(1) mean that people can claim up to four years from the commencement of this Bill. Does this mean that some funds will have to be kept in reserve in the event of litigation? Is it envisaged that the Exchequer will pick up the tab? It must be assumed from section 4 (1) that, apparently, proceedings are pending against the trustees. If not, there would be no need for the section which specifically says that any pending litigation against trustees will be transferred to the Minister.
There is a great need for clarification. The Minister's Second Stage speech raised more questions than it answered and there is a clear view on this side of the House that the first priority is the 147 full-time employees and the Labour Court ex gratia entitlement and, secondly, the category of pensioners who must live on a miserly sum. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments and ensure that there will be a time limit and a clear process whereby this House will know who gets what — and when — and that the liquidator will be pursued in relation to the proceeds of the sales of property on behalf of the employees.
Bearing in mind that there is less than £500,000 to be distributed, one must be careful not to give too much hope to the former employees of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. The situation is quite clear in regard to the 147 former employees but Deputy Howlin mentioned the category who took voluntary redundancy. They were promised an ex gratia payment and work but they did not receive the ex gratia payment and did not always get work. Special attention must be given to this category and I ask the Minister to bear those people in mind.
I am pleased to see the three main spokesmen for the Opposition parties in situ in their health portfolios.
We hope that the Minister will stay in situ.
I am just minding the seat for my colleague.
I wish the Deputy well. Section 3 leaves it open to the Minister for Health to decide, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, how he will dispose of the money on foot of service with the Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited. Three amendments have been tabled on this section. I have taken particular note of these amendments and have studied them in detail with my officials. I cannot see that any advantage would accrue by going through the tortuous procedure of moving regulations in draft form as proposed by Deputy Sherlock. In point of fact my officials have already discussed the issues involved with representatives of SIPTU who were accompanied by former members of the sweepstakes staff. I am not at all sure who could be said to represent the inhouse staff associations at this stage bearing in mind that the company went into liquidation in March 1987. We have met representatives of the pensioners who lost the ex-gratia elements of their pensions and, of course, have received representations from many of the pensioners. I am anxious that the payments be made as far as possible before Christmas. Any move to have the detail of these payments covered by regulations would only serve to delay the arrangements which are now being put in train.
Equally well I see little point in accepting Deputy Howlin's amendment as, in fact, we have to give the fullest consideration to the case made by each of the staff groups involved.
As I see it there are two disadvantaged groups involved — those who took early retirement and suffered the loss of the ex-gratia element of their pensions and, second, those who were made redundant in March 1987 when the sweepstakes closed. Other pensioners are not disadvantaged in the sense that they are at least as well off now as they would have been had the sweepstakes continued in operation. Therefore, I propose to give a flat rate payment to each of the former workers who took early retirement but who lost the ex-gratia element of their pensions and who are still alive. A similar payment will be made to the spouses of any of these pensioners who have since died.
I am afraid that legal difficulties would rule out payments to any other relatives of deceased persons. The balance will be shared out among the persons who were made redundant in March 1987 — spouses again being catered for as in the case of the first group. However, payments in the case of the March 1987 entitlement will be calculated on the same basis as was used to calculate statutory redundancy money; that is weighted according to age and service. We will have to be allowed a little latitude as there were a few people who, because of job offers, etc., left some days before 16 March 1987 but who must be regarded as persons who were made redundant on closure. All of these workers should get at least 60 per cent of their statutory redundancy entitlement, but I think we will put a lower floor on any such payments. I am afraid I will have to ask for the submission of claims in all cases but we should be able to process them very quickly.
The question of severance pay taxation was raised by Deputy Howlin on Second Stage, and he has now included it in a second amendment we received today at lunch time. My officials have consulted with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners on the taxation treatment of the proposed payments. The position is that the payments will fall to be treated as payments received in connection with the termination of employment which are chargeable to income tax by virtue of section 114 of the Income Tax Act, 1967. However, section 115 of that Act exempts from the charge to tax the first £6,000 of the aggregate of all such payments received by an employee in respect of an employment. In addition the Third Schedule to the Act provides for the exemption level to be increased up to £10,000 or more in certain circumstances.
Statutory redundancy payments which are specifically exempt from income tax by virtue of section 37 of the Finance Act, 1968, are not taken into account for the purposes of the exemption under the 1967 Act. In the circumstances, while the proposed payments will be technically chargeable to income tax, it is highly unlikely that any of the former employees of the Hospitals Trust will be actually liable to tax in respect of the amounts received by them, since none of the proposed payments will exceed the threshold.
Deputy Yates raised a few points. The Deputy inquired about the cost of the Labour Court award. The Labour Court recommended two weeks pay per year's service, that is up to £10,000 per person, and I estimate that that would cost about £1.5 million, and we are talking about distributing £480,000. There are no proceedings at the moment, and the Exchequer will meet any claims.
In response to Deputy Sherlock I can say that I am not looking for a blank cheque. I am looking for the sanction of the Oireachtas to pass an Act enabling the Minister for Health to disburse the special funds. There are a small number of people, and as Deputy Doyle said, a small sum of money involved. The Minister is very restricted in what he can do. We do not want a blank cheque. We want to ensure that we can maximise the information available to give the funds to as many people as possible. The latitude we are seeking is so that we can distribute those funds as fairly and as equitably as possible within the parameters laid down in the Act taking into account the small amount of money which has to be disbursed. I would be grateful if the House could agree to that and in the light of the information I have given perhaps those amendments can be withdrawn so that we can proceed to have the funds disbursed between now and Christmas.
I have pursued the bringing forward of this legislation for no other reason than that a number of the people concerned are in my constituency, and they asked me to do so. Until just now I have not been in a position to tell them what this legislation is likely to offer in their cases. In his answer just now the Minister has made it more clear than has been the situation up to now.
It is difficult to understand how the Minister considers that accepting amendment No. 1 would be somehow inconsistent with the view he has just read out. I have some experience in this kind of situation. It is imprudent of the Minister to take it upon himself to disburse what is a limited amount of money to quite a substantial number of people in different categories. No matter what the Minister does, it will not find favour everywhere. I do not see why the Minister would not wish to take on board amendment No. 1. If my information is correct, and perhaps the Minister would confirm this, the meeting with SIPTU was broadly in favour of the two categories the Minister has now advanced. In those circumstances it would be more prudent for the Minister to accept an amendment which effectively requires him to do no more than consult with the union concerned.
The amendment does not ask the Minister to agree, which would be a reasonably normal clause within such an employment as this, with the trade union, in this case, terms for redundancy, or in the event of an agreement being impossible, to use a mechanism to arbitrate between the two. This does not require the Minister to agree. It merely requires him to take into account the views of the trade union, which is as close as the Minister can get to getting a collective view in the unique circumstances in which we are dealing. The Minister cannot get a collective view no matter how he approaches it and this at least gives him the opportunity to get a collective view. It is a difficult situation, because if one spreads the butter too thinly it will be scarcely worth the exercise.
Deputies have advanced different categories. For example, Deputy De Rossa showed me a letter he received this morning from an employee apparently in the canteen, who must not have been an employee of the Sweep as such, and she argued fervently that she ought to be included along with her colleagues. I do not know whether that is the case, but there are different categories. In a situation like this all the Minister can do is bring forward enabling legislation and let the collective voice that is there take responsibility for suggesting the parameters of distribution. I would not think there would be such major changes to those suggested by the Minister in his reply but I certainly think that would be the preferable way of going about it. Therefore, far from saying amendment No. 1 is inconsistent with it I think it is perfectly consistent. If anything, it removes a certain opprobrium from the Minister which I am surprised, being a political animal, he is not anxious to do. It is unusual to have Ministers seeking to incur the opprobrium of the public. We would certainly be happy to support Deputy Howlin's amendment No. 3, but my own view would concur with what the Minister has confirmed, that in the circumstances it is not relevant because in no event is it likely employees will get the ceiling figure permitted under the Bill. In those circumstances it is probably unnecessary.
The Minister said that a flat rate payment will be made to an individual or, if that individual is now deceased, to the spouse. The history of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes is interesting in that most of the employees were women, some of whom were employed at a senior age. It is to the credit of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes — I am aware of the type of people they employed — that they employed many handicapped people. Many of the staff were single and lived probably with a caring sister. I know this is stretching this a bit far but I must make a case for the caring sister who has now been left on her own in very difficult circumstances. Given that the Minister is considering the position of the spouse, I ask him to consider the position of a caring sister.
I welcome the comments of the House which would seem to indicate that a consensus has been reached in the House. The difficulty is that we are talking about a very small amount of money. In a way this debate, and the coverage of it, has given rise to great expectations which will be dashed in the fullness of time. What I sought to do was recognise that the amount of money available is very small and in an effort to make it meaningful not to dilute it. If this is to be done effectively we will have to establish some priorities. As I see it, the first priority should be to those people who after 30 or 40 years of service got statutory redundancy and nothing else. There is a view that they should get a fair amount of the small sum of money we are talking about. The second category to be given priority should be the pensioners at the time of the closure of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes.
I welcome the Minister's comments but I would like him to elaborate on what he said. Perhaps that is asking too much as I am aware he has to carry out some analysis of specific cases but with regard to the flat rate payment he proposes to make to pensioners, what sum of money are we talking about? We could then judge what balance will be left to be shared out among those employed on the day the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes closed and an indication of the ball park figures involved. I also ask the Minister to indicate a timescale within which this could be done. Is it envisaged that this will be achieved and the money paid out this side of Christmas which would certainly be the desired objective of all Members?
In relation to amendment No. 3 in my name, I am in broad agreement with what the Minister said. He has now referred the matter to the Revenue Commissioners. Advice from a tax consultant to me was that this sum of money would likely be regarded by the Revenue Commissioners as severance pay and, therefore, not taxable as it would be below the threshold. However, there was no certainty that this would be the case. My object in putting down the amendment was to ensure certainty. If the Minister can assure us that he has ascertained, following consultations with the Revenue Commissioners, that this will be regarded as severance pay under section 114 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, and relieved by section 115 of the same Act, I would not be terribly anxious to press the amendment. It is important to have that principle included. If the Minister has done this by way of direct consultation, well and good but I want to be sure that the small amount of money they get will not be subject to tax subsequently. As I said, the Minister's last contribution was very helpful in coming to a consensus in the House but I would welcome the clarification I sought.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply to amendment No. 1. I should say that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are acceptable to us. Many questions are being asked, for instance, how many people will benefit, what are the categories and timescale involved. Reference has also been made by Deputy Yates to the recommendation of the Labour Court. They are very serious questions on a section which states:
The Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, dispose of the undistributed sweepstake prize funds in respect of such service by former employees of the company which was incorporated on the 6th day of May, 1940, as the Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited, as he shall determine
I would draw the attention of the Minister of State to the fact that the Minister on Second Stage said that it was his view that the people who were in permanent full-time employment when the Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited were placed in voluntary liquidation in March 1987 were, in fact, the most seriously disadvantaged of all the former employees and that, consequently, they should get a greater portion of the funds available. Surely this begs the question of how the Minister is going to ensure this. Who will help him make the determination? The Minister went on to state that he would welcome comments from the House and would take them all fully into account when deciding how best to divide up the money. However, there is no evidence that this has happened. I sought to ensure this by putting down amendment No. 1. that is the way to go about this and I ask the Minister to reconsider his position.
It is very important that we get these matters clarified given that the Minister has rejected these amendments. First, I would ask the Minister to clarify his reply. He said that pensioners will get nothing because if the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes were still in operation they would get the same pension. That is regrettable but understandable.
We then come to two categories of people, the first of which is the people who were in full-time employment the day the liquidator was appointed. They only got statutory redundancy and they are to get a flat rate payment. What I would like to know is how much of the £480,000 they are going to get. I would also like to know if this flat rate payment will be exactly the same as the flat rate payable to the other category. In other words will there be a flat rate payment for each year of service and will the amount be the same for each year of service?
I would like the Minister to clarify the position, as he views it, of the category Deputy Doyle referred to, those who took early retirement. That group have not been in touch with me and I would like the Minister to outline exactly the loss to them. Surely they got an ex gratia payment when they left, so presumably their loss is in terms of their pension. How does that loss compare with the £10,000 loss of the ex gratia payment which was recommended by the Labour Court? In other words, we have two definable groups, having excluded all other groups. It strikes me that, on balance, if the people who took early retirement received a lump sum, Deputy Howlin's point is valid. Those who lost their jobs, who received statutory redundancy and did not find other employment have a much better case in terms of this Bill than any of the others involved because they were left high and dry. There was an element of leaving voluntarily in the case of the people who left early and wanted to do something else or wanted to discontinue working. I am not saying they should not get anything. I am merely pointing out that those who were made redundant and received only the statutory redundancy are at the greatest loss of all. The Minister must clarify the amount they will receive and tell us also what the specific loss was for those who went on early retirement. Presumably pensions are still being paid to those exmembers of the staff who retired on reaching pensionable age but how is it that those who took early retirement are not receiving company pensions? Surely, like most superannuation funds, the contributions were set aside in some independent pension fund? I want to establish what their loss is and to compare it with the clearly established loss of the other group.
The Minister did not answer the other two questions. The first is whether he would accept — at this stage it is open to him only to move on this — some time limit to section 3 or to the whole operation of the Bill. I suggested it should be not more than one year. The second question is why it is that none of the proceeds of the sale of the property in Ballsbridge went to the benefit of the former employees.
A number of points have been raised and I will try to clarify them as best I can. If I miss any point I will respond later. I would love to be able to accept every amendment that comes before us and with which I am involved. Of course it is not possible to do that because while we all have genuine reasons for submitting amendments, acceptance of them would not always have the desired result. Deputy Rabbitte made a very good point and confirmed my own position when he said that as a result of meetings between my officials and officials and representatives from SIPTU and the pensioners there was broad agreement. The words he used were that things were broadly favourable. That is the exact position. As a result of those discussions we have been able to draft this Bill taking into account what information became available during the discussions and negotiations that proceeded over a number of meetings. The difficulty is that amendment No. 1 is explicit in that it asks for regulations as follows:
... and shall then make regulations providing for disposal of the undistributed sweepstake prize funds in respect of the service of such former employees.
If the Bill is passed, and we are confident that this will be the case, we would then, if the amendment were accepted, have to proceed to make regulations. We would have to prepare those regulations, take them back to the Oireachtas, have them passed in here and passed in the Seanad before they would become operable. That would delay the disbursement of the funds. This covers the point made by Deputy Yates in regard to a time limit on the Bill.
We have no desire to delay this Bill. We intend to have the matter concluded, if at all possible, between now and Christmas. We do not want to create a situation whereby the drafting of regulations would impede the disbursement of the funds to the people who deserve and need them. We do not see any need to draft regulations because the number of people involved is only 150, at maximum and the amount of money involved is only £480,000. As Deputy Howlin said that is a very small sum of money.
Deputy Doyle raised a point pertaining to other dependants, for instance, sisters of a former employee of Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited. There would be legal problems if we attempted to assist dependants other than spouses but of course, we will look at each case individually. The problem is that my Department would be inundated with claims from other relations, from, perhaps, cousins, nieces, etc. Under the law I cannot see any hope of catering for anybody other than the spouses concerned.
Deputy Howlin asked when the payments will be made. We envisage paying out as much of that money as possible before Christmas, taking into account the responses we get when we request information.
Will the Minister take a brief question?
Yes.
Is there in existence anywhere a list of eligible former employees, and if so, is it proposed to write to those people, whatever the outcome of the enactment of this legislation?
There is no formal or conclusive list as such but we have information regarding a good number of the employees. We will be publishing an advertisement which will give an opportunity to any former employee who is affected in any way as a result of the liquidation, to respond. This is the reason we want to proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible. We have various pieces of information but nothing conclusive.
I propose in so far as a list does exist that those concerned be written to because many of them may not become aware of the advertisement.
The Deputy can be certain we will communicate with anybody who has already communicated with us or whose name has been forwarded to us by SIPTU or by representatives of the pensioners. In any case where we have de facto information we will most certainly communicate with those concerned.
Thank you.
Surely there were payroll records to hand for the liquidator and PRSI details under the employer's registered number? It would be very unfair if people who might not become aware of the advertisement at the time of its publication were to lose out. There must be some responsibility on the Department to obtain the payroll records. There would be clearly established legitimate records which could prove beyond doubt who were the 150 employees at the time of the closure of the company. I do not see any need for an advertisement, and consider that it would be preferable to proceed on the basis of records rather than to leave it to chance as to what papers one might read.
In order to clarify that issue — and I do not want to mislead the House or any of the Deputies — we have details of the 147 workers who were affected at the time. We think there may be three or four more but we do not have current addresses for many of those involved. We have been in touch with the liquidator, we have had representations from SIPTU, we have met representatives of the pensioners' group, we have collated all the information but we want to make certain that we can identify, so far as possible, where these people are. We will publish an advertisement to give to people who may not be living in this city now, who may have moved to relations overseas or wherever, an opportunity of writing to us. But we have the list of people with whom we want to deal.
Deputy Yates asked a question about the level of pension applying to those pensioners who lost their ex gratia payments. The information available to me is that they are getting 14 per cent of their salary from the Hospitals Trust pension. I hope that clarifies the situation.
I should like to clarify for Deputy Howlin that he is absolutely right in his interpretation of the situation that the payments being made will be treated under the provisions of section 114 of the Income Tax Act, 1967. If the total fund was to be distributed evenly among 150 people it would average only £3,200. Obviously, those involved will be well under the threshold for tax purposes.
There is one question the Minister did not answer. As I said when I originally posed it, it might be difficult for him to answer this question. Has the Minister worked out the flat-rate payment he intends making to the pensioners' category so that we will have an indication of what the residual sum will be?
We have not worked out the flat-rate payment as yet because we do not have the full information.
What will it be roughly?
We are hoping that the minimum for one category will be £500 and the minimum on the other category will be £1,000.
For which category?
There are a number of Deputies offering. Perhaps Deputy Howlin will exhaust his questions first.
I want to pursue this point. I understand the Minister is talking about ball park figures — I am not trying to nail him down on this point — but presumably he is saying that £1,000 will be the minimum amount payable to the employees who lost their jobs when the Sweepstakes closed and £500 will be the minimum amount payable to those pensioners who lost the pension they were entitled to——
Those who took early retirement.
——once the company ceased to function. Are those the specific figures?
The Deputy's interpretation is correct but it is the other way around. The people who lost the ex gratia elements of their pensions and who are still alive will be taken on age and years of service. Consequently, they will have accumulated the right to the greater amount. We hope to give them about £1,000 but it could be more or less. We hope to give the people who lost their jobs on the day of the liquidation, some of whom would have short service and others who would have medium service a minimum of £500.
I want to follow up this point because, quite frankly, it causes me great concern. I thought we had reached the view that those who had lost their jobs on the day the company went into liquidation were the people who were most disadvantaged in that those who had previously opted in a voluntary way for early redundancy would have got more than the statutory provision at that time. As I said, I understand the Minister is talking about ball park figures but obviously many people who lost their jobs on the day of the liquidation would have had a very long record of service with the company. Is the Minister saying that there might be a great disparity between the amounts they would get — the minimum will be £500 but some people will get a great deal more? Is that what the Minister has in mind?
I would not want anybody to misinterpret what I am saying. The figures I have given the House are the minimum. With regard to the people who became redundant on the day of the liquidation — 16 March 1987 — some of them, by virtue of age and years of service, could get up to £4,000, some £3,000, scaling down to £500.
With regard to the people who had left the company — some left the week of the liquidation and some prior to that — they lost their ex gratia payments. We hope that those who are advancing in years, etc, will qualify — as I said this will depend on age and other criteria — for £1,000 and upwards, if possible.
Upwards to how much?
I do not know. It will depend on age, etc. Those are only the minimum figures and we will have to look at the whole situation.
It is obvious from the debate so far that there is a clear need for the amendment proposed by The Workers' Party to section 3. On 7 November 1987, approximately 100 former employees of the company brought a claim for extra redundancy payments before the Labour Court. The Labour Court in its recommendation took into consideration the submission made by the parties but stated it was not possible to determine what the eventual financial outturn of the liquidation would be because of pending courts actions. In the circumstances, the court considered that a case existed for the payment of redundancy of two weeks per year of service. I must say that I find it difficult to understand the trend of the debate so far. Does the Minister propose to honour the Labour Court recommendation that the 100 former employees should get the additional two weeks redundancy payment for every year of service?
I think Deputy Sherlock is misinterpreting the purpose of this Bill. Its purpose is very clear and explicit: we are disbursing special funds of up to £480,000 which accumulated as a result of non-drawn down prizes and deposit interest accumulating over a number of years and I, on behalf of the Minister for Health and the Department of Health, have responsibility in this area.
This Bill was brought forward to enable us to dispose of these funds which have been lying in abeyance since the liquidation of the company but the subsequent Labour Court decision is a matter for another Minister, and, above all, it has to be determined by the liquidator in his disbursement of the assets of that company. As such, I have no role, on behalf of the Minister or the Department, in that area. Our function under this Bill is to deal with the special fund of £480,000 which has accumulated. We want to ensure that the maximum amount of flexibility is available so that we can treat every worker as fairly as possible based on their age, years of service and the gravity of their situation. However, we are constrained by the number of workers and the small amount of money to be disposed of. This is what the Bill refers to; the Labour Court recommendation does not enter into the issue.
I should like to ask the Minister some very simple questions. Perhaps he will write them down and give me some straight answers. There are two categories of people — category A, those who took early retirement, and category B, those in full-term employment who were made redundant on 16 March 1987. What did the people in category A — those who took early retirement — actually get? Did they get any ex gratia payment or pension? If they did get a pension, are they still getting it? I should like to establish who lost what.
I assume that those in category B — those in full-time employment who were laid off on 16 March — got statutory redundancy, but did not get an ex gratia payment or pension. Is that correct? Will the Minister answer those questions?
About 120 employees left in 1978 and 1980 on voluntary redundancy. They got an ex gratia top-up on their pensions which they lost when the company went into liquidation in March 1987. That rate was about £1,000. With regard to those in category B, 147 employees were made redundant on 16 March 1987. If they had enough service they got pensions and statutory redundancy.
Did they get pensions from the State?
No, they got pensions from the Hospitals Trust pension fund.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Are the people in both categories currently receiving pensions if they have a pension entitlement?
Yes, most definitely. Anyone who has a pension entitlement is getting the 14 per cent or thereabouts of their salaries from the Hospitals Trust pension fund.
The Minister said that those who left in 1978 and 1980 got an ex gratia top-up on their pensions which they lost when the company went into liquidation. Will the Minister clarify that point? My understanding of an ex gratia payment is that a person gets one lump sum on the day he leaves a company. Did these people get the ex gratia payment and the pension?
The people who left the company in 1978 and 1980 got approximately 14 per cent of their salary in pension. They were to get 50 per cent of their salary as a top-up, which they would be paid annually, but when the company went into liquidation they lost that.
They got it for seven years.
They lost the annual gratuity they would have received instead of a weekly pension; the second group got a redundancy payment and a pension, but no ex gratia sum and they are still getting the pension if they are entitled to it.
That is right. If they had enough service to qualify for pension they got 14 per cent of their salary by way of pension and are still getting it. They got the minimum statutory redundancy payment.
When the Minister speaks about a flat rate, I assume that is a flat rate per year of service. Do I take it that both categories are getting the same amount on this lump sum?
We propose to pay a flat rate of approximately £1,000 to the first category.
That is, presumably, those who took early retirement. I am not talking about the total amounts of money but about the reckonable way it is done, which must be based on years of service. Is the flat rate per year of service the same for both groups?
No. It will be different in the second group.
They will get more.
The first group will get more. We hope to pay them a flat rate of approximately £1,000 and the second group a flat rate of approximately £500. Age, years of service and situation will be taken into account. These are minimum figures. We cannot establish the maximum until we examine each case.
Let us take the case of a person with 30 years' service who took early retirement on 1 April 1980 and somebody with 30 years' service who was made redundant on 16 March 1987. Will they get the same amount? The reckonable service is identical.
The second group will get more where the service is high.
Where the service is the same, who will get more? Is the flat rate the same?
The flat rate is not the same. The people who went out on early retirement or on pension and who lost their ex gratia payment and their pension top-up will get more.
I am concerned at that attitude. If we look at this by way of loss, there is a case to be made to sustain the Minister's weighting of money to pensioners who are losing out on their ex gratia top-up, but in equity they volunteered to go before the company collapsed. They fared better than those who left when the company went into liquidation and simply got statutory entitlements. There is a strong case that those with identical service should be treated the same way. When the Minister said there would be a disparity, I thought it would be based on length of service and that two individuals with comparable service belonging to either group would be treated in like manner. I do not see any justification for one group having a greater weight put on their years of service. It has been my contention that those who lost their jobs on the day and simply got statutory redundancy should be better treated than those who lost their ex gratia amount.
The first group — those on pension — will get a flat rate of about £1,000 and the difference in any of the payments made to them will be minimal, varying between £900 and £1,100. They all had the same level of service and left at a particular time. The people who left as a result of liquidation obviously will have the greater claim. Some of them would have very short service and we want to give them, say, £500, but others with longer service will receive amounts ranging up to £4,000. The first group will get a flat rate of £1,000. The second group falls into two categories, those who have a minimum service and will get about £500 and those who will qualify for the maximum of about £4,000. I hope that clarifies the matter.
The Minister has contradicted himself. I asked who would get the higher rate in terms of reckonable service and the Minister replied that it would be the former group, those who took early retirement. The Minister is now saying that they will get a lump sum of about £1,000, irrespective of years of service. The rate per year of service for the second group will be higher, which is not what the Minister said earlier.
Pensioners who went out voluntarily or on grounds of age and years of service have lost and we propose to pay them approximately £1,000 by way of flat rate gratuity or gesture. Those who lost out on liquidation fall into two areas, those who had short term service, who will receive about £500, and those who had longer service and will qualify for up to £4,000. This is where we need flexiblity.
Now that the Minister has outlined what he intends to do, he should reflect on it. The first group, those who took early retirement, have lost an annual sum which was part of their pension — 50 per cent, I think. The other group also lost and that matter was dealt with by the Labour Court. Their loss is greater. I disagree with the proposal to give a minimum of £500 to someone who had three or four years' service when the company went into liquidation, while another person may get up to £4,000. I do not believe there should be a minimum. Payment should be based on years of service.
Let us suppose somebody entered the service of the Hospitals Sweepstakes at age 17 and was made redundant at 24 years of age. Obviously that person would have had a much greater chance of obtaining another job and getting on with their life than somebody who had given, say, 30 years service and was made redundant at 54 years of age on 17 March 1987. If the Minister is proposing to give minimum guaranteed sums, within the second group, over and above that to which they would be entitled per year of service, that would strike me as being unfair. Whatever the sum of money available for distribution among the second category, that is those who fit into a clear-cut group, who were in full-time employment and made redundant, I contend they should be paid solely on the basis of their years of service; that is the way all other systems work. It would strike me that that would be only fair.
I would concur with Deputy Howlin that the Minister's second explanation to him about someone with 30 years' service who went out in 1980 or someone else who was made redundant at the time of liquidation does not quite answer the question as to who will receive the greater amount of money in that case. For example, let us say that Mr. Murphy was made redundant on the date of liquidation with 30 years' service. Then there was Miss Murphy who opted for voluntary redundancy, let us say, on 1 April 1980 — with 30 years' service, which of those two will receive more money this Christmas? That question must be answered. Obviously, if either group receives more, that must be accounted for by a difference in the rate per reckonable years' service. Within the second group — the subgroups the Minister has outlined — the amount should be a sum calculated on years of service rather than a minimum payment.
Deputy Yates has clearly illustrated the position as I see it. If a person had short term service when the company went into liquidation on 16 March 1987, if they were reasonably young, they had a good chance of getting another job. The minimum payment we hope to make to such a person will be approximately £500. The other person who, by virtue of age, service and commitment to the company, found themselves in circumstances of having lost their job, their pension having been reduced and receiving no ex gratia payment, now out of work with little or no chance of obtaining another job, will receive a higher payment based on years of service, on their age, amounting perhaps up to £4,000.
People who prior to March 1987 opted for voluntary redundancy and left, who retired on grounds of age and are receiving a pension, amounting to 14 per cent only of their then salary, who have been losing out on the topping-up facility, will receive a flat rate of approximately £1,000 each.
Can the Minister of State answer my question about Mr. Murphy and Miss Murphy?
I forget the vital statistics the Deputy quoted. Perhaps he could repeat them.
Certainly. My straight-forward question is this: Miss Murphy took voluntary redundancy in 1980 after 30 years' service. She is still receiving a pension amounting to 14 per cent of her then salary but has lost out on the topping-up money, the one cheque per year. Mr. Murphy was made redundant on 16 March 1987, having 30 years' service. Who will get what in those circumstances? Will they receive the same amount of money or who will get more and who less?
Miss Murphy left voluntarily in March 1980. She will receive approximately £1,000. Mr. Murphy, who found himself in circumstances in which he had no job on St. Patrick's Day 1987, could receive anything up to £4,000 depending on his years of service in the company.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, No. 2 not moved.
How stands amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Howlin?
In the light of the Minister's explanation of the way in which the money is to be treated I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
In reply to an earlier question the Minister of State stated that there were no legal proceedings outstanding against the trustees of the Hospital Sweepstakes. Section 4 (1) seeks to substitute the Minister for trustees in the event of there being any proceedings. In view of the fact that there are no proceedings pending surely this subsection is superfluous?
We have a very broad and democratic Constitution in this State. Every citizen has his or her own rights. That Constitutional right would give citizens an opportunity, if they so wished, to proceed to ask the courts to adjudicate on any given decision or set of circumstances. In the event of any individual citizen so doing, this subsection is there to cover that eventuality.
Fair enough, that is a theoretical exercise. Section 4 (2) reads:
All liabilities duly incurred before the commencement of this section by sweepstakes trustees...
What liabilities, if any, are there? In other words, is there any other call on the £480,000 that can be foreseen now? While the Minister is considering that, does he intend to subtract his departmental administrative costs from the total or will the departmental work be done free gratis?
The reply to the second question is that any work done by the Department will be carried within its own Vote. We would not dare to subtract any moneys for administration or anything like that from the small fund available to these very decent people who gave such long and dedicated service to the Hospitals Sweepstakes.
The reason for the insertion of section 4 (2) is that any liabilities, be they bank charges or whatever, needing to be paid will be paid.
I do not know whether I heard the Minister correctly. Were there any liabilities other than bank charges?
There were other liabilities but they have all been cleared. The figure we are quoting at present is the net one. Lest other liabilities would arise, subsection (2) has been inserted.
The net figure to which the Minister refers is the £480,000; is that correct? Am I correct in saying there have been deductions from that figure already?
Since 1930, over the past 60 years, approximately £200,000 has been deducted.
From the date of liquidation to date, what has been deducted from that residual fund and for what purpose?
Since liquidation the relevant figure would have been very small.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill".
In view of the comments from all sides of the House with regard to consulting the Oireachtas and so on, may I ask whether it is the intention that, when the final accounts of these transactions have been concluded, they will be laid before the House of the Oireachtas? I would ask the Minister to give us a commitment that they will be.
Most definitely.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".
I am somewhat puzzled as to why section 7 (1) has been inserted. Perhaps the Minister would clarify, first of all, whether there is a suspicion that people who have not claimed this money will come out of the closet and claim it over the next four years. Is that the reason for the insertion of this subsection? If the Minister intends to pay out the money by Christmas why has this four-year clause been inserted? If he disburses all the money, if he does not leave a residue of money, and if someone claims a prize, that charge will fall on the Exchequer. I understood the Minister to say at the end of the Second Stage that many of these prizes go back decades; they were not won in the eighties, but much earlier.
It would be better if this open ended clause were not there. People have had an opportunity to claim their prizes and there should be a time limit. I referred earlier to a time limit on the disbursement of the funds, but I think four years is far too long to leave the Exchequer open to litigation, charge or whatever. It would be better to tidy up the housekeeping to get this finished and to say that if people have not claimed their prizes by 1 March next, for example, that would be the end of it.
I do not agree with Deputy Yates. One of the hallmarks of the sweepstakes was that you were at liberty to claim your prize any time after you won it. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that people will discover they have won a prize. I understand section 4 was to transfer the liability from the sweepstake fund to the Minister for Health. It is not as if there would be any new liabilities, it is simply that old liabilities would be transferred to the Minister for Health.
My argument is the reverse to Deputy Yates' argument, that we should leave it open ended. We should not have this section but instead we should allow anybody who discovered he has entitlement, to pursue that against the Minister for Health. The amount of money is quantifiable and because we know how much outstanding prizes are not collected — it is highly unlikely that any will be collected at this stage — the prospects of someone discovering he can collect a few shillings due to him should be maintained and that liability should fall on the Minister for Health as envisaged under section 4.
The purpose of this section is to provide that any further claims in respect of undistributed prizes can be made only within a period of four years but also that this period of four years would be extended in the case of a claimant under a legal disability which prevents him processing a claim within that period. We propose to distribute the £480,000 in its entirety among the 150 or so people. If over the next four years, somebody discovers he won a prize and did not claim it, he can do so over the next four years and the Exchequer will pay that prize to him. However, there may be some certain circumstances, due to medical disabilities, institutionalisation and so on, where a person was not aware he had won this prize and we feel it would be unfair to deprive him, when it is discovered he has won a prize, of claiming it. That is why that other clause is there. We have taken very detailed advice on this, and the advice we have is that at least four years should elapse before we would even close the door, much less put a lock on it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister elaborate a little? Moneys falling to be paid into the Hospitals Trust fund in future years, as might arise, say, in the event of sale of a fund-assisted hospital will be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in accordance with the direction of the Minister for Finance. In what circumstances does the Minister envisage such a situation arising?
Originally the Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited were set up to fund a capital programme for public hospitals. Some hospitals or some institutions, albeit a small number, would have been supported with funds from that fund in the past. This section is here to cover the eventuality of the disposal of a property in future, part of whose acquisition or development may have been funded out of the fund originally. The money from that disposal in the future would go into the Exchequer.
When the Minister raised the question of disposals of property he jogged my memory into recalling that he never answered my question in relation to——
Something I would never wish to do.
——the Ballsbridge property and why the unfortunate ex-employees had no recourse to any of that money and whether the timing of the legislation which gave legal protection to the rights of employees in the event of liquidation came too late for these cases. The Minister referred to this point on Second Stage. There has been a very strong demand by the former employees, that the receipts from the sale of the Hospitals Trust premises at Ballsbridge be made available. What is the Minister's understanding? Can he use his good offices to ensure that there might be some additional comfort from that quarter for the ex-employees?
I would love to be able to use my good offices to create further funds for the ex-employees of Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited. However, the Ballsbridge property was held in private ownership by a private company and as such Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited were only tenants. Consequently, the disposal of that property is covered by other law and is in the hands of the liquidator, and the Minister for Health, myself or the Department of Health cannot have a role by law, in getting any of those funds. We regret that.
The Minister will be aware that under the Landlord and Tenant Act any tenant of a commmercial property who has tenure for longer than three years has automatic legal right to a 35-year lease and cannot be put out of the place willy-nilly. Therefore, there must have been some tenancy rights that were of some value, and therefore there should have been some proceeds. That is a normal commercial property position. The Minister knows that you cannot put out a tenant once that tenant has three years tenure. That means he has fixed rights and the only way a landlord can get him out is to buy him out. My understanding is that this property has since been sold and is part of a very major development, which is welcome in its own right, but surely there should have been some proceeds from that sale? The fact that it was a tenancy does not mean certain rights do not have a beneficial value.
Maybe the Minister will confirm that a transfer fee of some £700,000 was paid by the Department of Health to Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited.
The Hospitals Trust board bought out the lease which was held by the company for, I think, £1.4 million. Consequently, that went to the liquidator. With regard to the rights Deputy Yates speaks about, I am not a lawyer——
The Minister has answered my question. Deputy Howlin had a different point.
Was a transfer fee of the lease on the Ballsbridge site paid by the Department of Health?
Was a transfer——
In the transfer of the lease of the Ballsbridge site from the Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited, was a fee paid to the Department of Health?
The lease was transferred to the Hospitals Trust board and the only fees were legal fees.
What is the up-to-date position about the liquidation? Is it concluded? Have many unsecured and other creditors been left high and dry? What is the current state of play?
There is not much information available to me but from all the exploration we have done it would seem that it will take about another year to conclude the liquidation process.
Do I take it that when it is concluded there will be substantial debts that the liquidator will not be able to cover, or is it envisaged that most of the debts will be covered? In other words, will there be any surplus funds to cover any prospect for the employees vis-á-vis the Labour Court, or is it the situation that banks and other creditors will get so many pence in the pound? What is the Minister's knowledge of the situation?
That would be the normal situation, but we have no hard information to show exactly what the liabilities are, who the creditors are or what assets will be available for distribution. That is purely a matter for the liquidator and the information is not available to us.
Finally, as the purpose of this whole legislation has been to help the employees, perhaps the Minister might use his good offices to contact the liquidator to see what the final picture will be and notify the Members of this House of whatever reply he gets so that we might be in some position to close the book on this and let people who have corresponded with us know whether there is any hope.
I will do what I can to get information. However, I could not give any guarantee that I will be able to secure it because it is the right of the liquidator to have the information and to use it as he thinks best in the liquidation process. If we get the information from the liquidator we will be as co-operative as we can, but I could not give any guarantee about being able to get it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
At all Stages the Opposition have wholeheartedly expedited the passage of this legislation and I hope it will bring some small comfort to those ex-employees who, in my view, have been very shamefully treated by the sweepstakes board. I am also disappointed that the whole concept of sweepstakes money going to public hospitals no longer exists with the repeal of these Acts. I hope that the national lottery will ensure that the health service in general is not at a net loss in view of the fact that a lot of charitable organisations have lost out badly because of the success of the national lottery. I hope the Department of Health will bear that in mind so that there will be no loss in total money terms to the health sector.
I indicate the support also of the Labour Party for this measure. It is acknowledged on all sides of the House that it is a very inadequate sum of money, giving poor recompense to people who gave a lifetime service in building up the State's health service. I instanced the very many campaigns in relation to the eradication of tuberculosis, for example, and the provision of a capital fund to enable a national structure of hospitals to be constructed. That was made possible by the dedicated work of the people who worked for the sweepstakes over the years. They were treated shamefully at the end and, belatedly, we are beginning to recognise that. The amount of money is important, but the acknowledgement that these people are due a debt is important as well. This Bill serves a dual function — providing a small financial compensation but also an acknowledgement by the Oireachtas that these people were shabbily treated and that their service is, belatedly, very much appreciated.
I indicated previously that I do not share the view that we should look, in the nineties, to a lottery as a core method for funding our health services. There should be a proportion of money set aside from the Exchequer purse to provide the level of service that is required by the citizens of this country. That is a matter of principle.
I do hope it will be possible, once this Bill is enacted, for the money to be paid out on the timescale the Minister has indicated to this House, and that the small amount of money available will be paid to those people in time for them to enjoy it at Christmas.
I, too, would like to say that I and The Workers' Party are glad that this Bill has now passed and that the employees, the very faithful and loyal servants who were discarded in a brutal and heartless way, will get some recompense. The Irish Hospitals Trust was one of the great success stories of this country for several decades. It was established in the thirties and the sweepstakes it ran provided badly needed funds for the development of hospitals. I hope the fact that it no longer exists will not leave a void. It must be recognised that the contribution for health must be a much higher percentage of the gross national product. That is the basis on which health funding should be provided. As I said, I am glad that there is some recompense for the people who gave such loyal service.
I would like to thank the House for its co-operation in ensuring the passage of this Bill. I would like in particular to thank my three Opposition colleagues, the spokes-persons for Health with whom I have had a wonderful working relationship over the past 15 months. I would like to thank Deputy Doyle for his very generous contribution to this debate. I would like also to say on behalf of the State, the Minister for Health and the Department, how much we appreciate and acknowledge the loyal and dedicated service given by the workers employed by Hospitals Trust (1940) Limited and that I identify with the difficulties in which they find themselves and have every sympathy with their position. We would love to be able to assist them further and we appreciate the co-operation of the House in disbursing the only funds available to the Minister for Health in assisting them.
Taking into account what has been said by other Deputies, we can assure the House that we will provide the maximum amount of resources available for the health services taking into account the budgetary situation prevailing at any given time. Thank you very much for your co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.