Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Jun 2000

Vol. 522 No. 4

Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited (Payments to Former Employees) Bill, 2000: Second Stage.

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill provides for the making of ex gratia payments of £20,000 to the former employees of the Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited or their personal representatives. Former employees or their representatives will apply for the ex gratia payment. Applications will be reviewed by an interdepartmental committee and each eligible applicant will be paid £20,000.

The Irish Hospital Sweepstakes was established in 1930 and was promoted by a private company, Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited, in pursuance of a standing agreement with a sweepstake committee appointed by the governing bodies of various hospitals. The Hospitals' Trust Fund was used to channel the net proceeds of the sweepstakes to hospitals for capital purposes. Statutory responsibility for the Hospitals' Trust Fund was with the Minister for Health and that for the running of the sweepstakes by Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited with the Minister for Justice. Overall responsibility for pensions in the private sector rests with the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.

Sales of sweepstakes reached a peak of £18 million in 1961 but then declined until for the three years 1980-82 total sales were only £23.1 million. The expenses as a percentage of the proceeds came to exceed the statutory maximum of 40%. The bulk of the income had come from outside the State, and this had declined severely as legal gambling opportunities arose elsewhere. The Hospitals' Sweepstakes made various proposals for new weekly draws but the approval of the Minister for Justice was not forthcoming, mainly because it was considered the draws would interfere with and cause unfair competition with existing lotteries supporting worthy causes.

The entire workforce, then some 150 persons, were given notice of redundancy in January 1987 and received statutory redundancy payments. The Labour Court in 1987 recommended payment of redundancy of two weeks pay per year of service in addition to the statutory payments already made. This was rejected by the company on the grounds of inability to pay. Although there was a company pension scheme, most of the persons concerned accepted a once-off lump sum of a few thousand pounds in lieu of the small pensions that were available. They are now dependent on the State old age pension.

In December 1990 the Public Hospitals (Amendment) Act enabled the Minister for Health to take over approximately £481,000 in unclaimed sweepstakes prize money, together with accrued interest, for distribution to former employees of the company. The money was distributed in 1990 and 1991 to the former employees generally regarded as the most seriously disadvantaged when the company ceased operating.

The staff made redundant in 1987 were the only employees of the company who did not receive any compensation over and above statutory redundancy entitlements, apart from a tiny pension or a small lump sum. All other groups of employees of the company who were made redundant prior to 1987 received compensation in the form of enhanced redundancy lump sums and enhanced pensions. Accordingly, this Bill is directed towards the staff who were made redundant in 1987. It provides that they receive a once-off and final payment from the Exchequer of £20,000 each. Some 147 former employees who were made redundant benefited from the Department of Health scheme in 1990-91. It is expected that the number of beneficiaries of this scheme will be similar and the cost to the Exchequer will be somewhat less than £3 million.

It is important to point out that these ex gratia payments do not involve setting a precedent for former employees in other organisations, either public or private. There are several unique features which distinguish the former employees from others. While the employees were employed by a private company, statutory responsibility for running the sweepstakes by Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited rested with the Minister for Justice. The existence of this company was dependent on the Hospitals' Trust Fund, which was used to disburse the net proceeds of the sweepstakes to hospitals. Statutory responsibility for this fund rested with the Minister for Health.

Those employees who remained with the company until it closed received only their statutory redundancy entitlements, supplemented by a tiny occupational pension or the alternative of a small lump sum. Most of them opted to accept the lump sum which means they are dependent on their old age pension. While more than 30 of these former employees have since died, the majority are single women living in very poor circumstances. I am confident that no other group of former employees of other organisations could claim that their circumstances are similar to those of the sweepstakes employees who were made redundant in 1987.

The purpose of the Bill is to establish a mechanism which will enable ex gratia payments to be made to former employees of Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited. Section 1 is an interpretation section and defines the terms in the Bill. The term “former employee” is defined as a person who was employed by the company for a period of which not less than 104 weeks was a period of continuous employment within the meaning of Schedule III of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, and continued to be employed until 1987. The term “personal representative” has the same meaning as in the Succession Act, 1965.

Section 2 provides that payment may be made to the former employee or, in the case of a deceased employee, to a personal representative. This section also identifies the level of payment at £20,000. Section 3 provides for the appointment of a committee to advise and assist the Minister in implementing the provisions of the Act. The membership of the committee will comprise two officers from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and one officer each from the Department of Finance and the Department of Health and Children. The remainder of the section deals with the position of chairman of the committee, the quorum for meetings, filling of vacancies, regulation of business and the dissolution of the committee.

Section 4 provides that applications must be made within two months of the passing of the Act, although this may be extended by the Minister. Such information as the Minister may require to process the application must be provided. Where applications are refused the applicant must be so notified in writing and the reasons for the refusal must be given. Applicants must be informed that they can appeal the decision within 21 days. Appeals against such refusals may be made within 21 days. The Minister must consider such appeals and notify the applicant of the final decision and the reasons for this decision.

Section 5 prohibits the giving of false information in relation to an application for payment. It provides for a maximum fine of £1,000, but recognises that certain defences are available. Section 6 provides that applications for payment must be referred to the committee. The committee ascertain whether the applicant is a former employee. If the former employee is not the applicant, the committee must verify the status of the applicant in relation to the former employee. This section provides that the committee report to the Minister on its investigations and activities. The section also provides that the committee can require applicants to answer questions and provide information and documents relevant to the application.

Section 7 provides that in the case of a deceased former employee, payment will be made to the personal representative.

Section 8 provides that administrative expenses incurred by the Minister will be paid from moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 9 is a formal section which provides the Short Title.

This Bill represents the final chapter in the ongoing saga concerning the treatment of a small group of Sweepstakes workers who were made redundant in 1987. The perception is widespread that these workers were badly dealt with both by their former employer and the State. The Bill vindicates the campaign of these former employees for a generous gesture by Government. It is hoped that these former employees will take some satisfaction from this ex gratia payment.

In particular, I salute the efforts of the representative of the Sweepstakes workers, Mr. John Slevin. If it was not for his determination and for the fact that he was so resolute and such a good campaigner for the former workers, I doubt we would have legislation of this kind before us today. Those former workers, in particular, owe him a great deal of gratitude.

I am delighted to be in a position to bring the Bill before the House and to ensure that a group of very vulnerable people, who were done a grave injustice in my view, can now get some satisfaction from what is happening. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Owen

There is an old saying "better late than never", and if ever that applied to something, it applies to this legislation. Eventually under this legislation former workers of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes will be paid an ex gratia payment of £20,000.

I understand there are about 147 who will benefit. Most of these staff who worked in the Sweepstakes were women and many of them were widows. My mother was widowed early, as were many of her friends, and the only work they could find was in the Sweepstakes. They had to work hard for a very low wage and many of them suffered when the Sweepstakes closed down. I am very glad we are passing this legislation today in order to make this ex gratia payment. No doubt it does not make up fully for what they suffered, but it is heartening to know that people who have fought long and hard for 14 years, quietly and often without much recognition, will now see that they will get their entitlement.

When the Sweepstakes closed down in 1985-6, a derisory pension of £2 per week was paid to many of those people or a lump sum of £4,000 to £5,000 in lieu of the pension. Obviously at that time some people took that lump sum instead of the £2 per week because they probably had bills to pay, etc. The pension fund established in the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes was totally inadequate and underfunded when the Sweepstakes closed down, and of course then the Revenue Commissioners moved in to take about half of the money available in capital gains tax.

As the House will be aware, the sequence of events was that the former workers decided to take the matter to the Labour Court. They won a ruling from the Labour Court that they should be paid two weeks pay for each year of service. That looked reasonably hopeful to the former workers, who felt that the State had benefited so much from the activities of the Sweepstakes.

The State benefited from the Sweepstakes to the tune of £35 million in stamp duty on the Sweepstakes prize fund, £135 million for its hospital building – in the 57 years of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, that was a valuable sum and £7.7 million as a direct result of the Sweepstakes closure. The State benefited from large volumes of foreign currency at a time when that was very hard to come by and helped the balance of payments deficit at that time. The State also benefited from industries set up on the back of the Sweepstakes success such as Waterford Crystal, Irish Glass and the bloodstock industry.

Therefore the former workers were right, the State had been the main beneficiary of their work, and they rightly thought when they got the award from the Labour Court that the State would assist in the payment of the award. As the House will be aware, the State was unable to do so. In Parliamentary Questions from Deputy Gregory and the then Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla, the then Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, who is now our esteemed Leas-Cheann Comhairle, indicated that "It is not open to the Hospital's Trust Board to divert any of the net proceeds of the sale . . .", which, I understand, resulted in revenue of £6 million to the State, to benefit the redundant Sweepstakes workers. He also stated: "Neither is it open to me as Minister for Health to divert any such funds for this purpose or to instruct the board to do so." He went on to say that he had great sympathy with the workers but, as the House will be aware, one cannot live on sympathy.

Again two months later, on 21 May 1989, Parliamentary Questions were tabled to the Minister by Deputies from his side of the House, Deputies Andrews and Stafford. The reply appeared to open a little chink of light in the sense that the Minister stated that "Present indications are that amending legislation would be required to secure their disposal", meaning the disposal of the assets out of which perhaps the redundant workers could be paid. However, the Minister went on to state: "It is unlikely that any such funds could be diverted to augment redundancy payments for former employees of Hospital Trust (1940) Limited.". Somebody in the then Department of Health was at least taking some interest by saying that present indications were that amending legislation would be required. That, again, probably gave a glimmer of hope that somebody might do something.

Then, in 1992, the same Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, introduced the Public Hospitals (Amendment) Bill, 1990. That Bill was introduced specifically in order that the disbursement of the money belonging to the Hospitals' Trust could be used for paying the Labour Court award but sadly, as I said in my summary, that money was not sufficient to pay the award to the redundant workers. Once again, their hopes and wishes were dashed and they had to accept it.

The long struggle to find a way to get their just rewards for their work of so many years continued when it was discovered when the money available would not cover the Labour Court award. Some people had 40 years service with the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes and they felt very hard done by.

There was a promise in the Fianna Fáil Government document in 1990 that this matter would be addressed and, in fairness to the then Government, the Bill to which I referred, which was introduced on 5 November 1992, did appear to make an effort to pay the money due. Regrettably no Government since 1990, that is, the Governments of Fianna Fáil, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party, and the Rainbow Government, really tackled the issue in a meaningful way.

It is as if the matter has come full circle, for the moment anyway, to a Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats variation on the theme. It may be an endangered species, but I must at least give credit where it is due. This Government, having put it into its programme for the millennium, could have provided for it in the 1999 budget. Although it failed to take the initiative at that stage, I warmly welcome today's commitment from the Tánaiste in the form of the Bill. It was probably her personal interest in, and commitment to, righting a wrong which drove this legislation forward.I warmly welcome the legislation and thank the Minister and the Government for delivering on their promise.

Many people who will receive the money are getting on in years, so the money will be extremely useful to them for the various expenses they might encounter such as repairing their homes, increased medical or nursing care or assistance to build an extension to the family home in which they can live. There are many things on which people can spend the money. Sadly, some will not enjoy it because they have died. I welcome the reference in the Bill to personal representatives and perhaps the Minister would clarify that phrase when she replies. I take it that it means a spouse or children, be they natural or adopted, and that they would benefit. That is right, because there are probably many instances where the spouse or family of a redundant worker had to financially assist that former worker because of the derisory amount of money they received in 1987, which was £2 a week or a £4,000 lump sum. It is only right that the family should benefit.

The time for applying to claim this money is very short. It is only two months. Will the Minister assure the House when she replies that every effort will be made to identify everyone who is eligible to be paid or their personal representatives? I assume the legislation will be signed next week by the President, which means the two month period will occur during a difficult time when people will be on holidays. It is possible that eligible people could go and stay with their children in the country or by the sea, for example, and, given their age, it could be for an extended period. I am fearful that someone from that group who has waited 14 long years for this day of celebration might not know about their eligibility and slip through the net. I pay a warm tribute to John Slevin and others who have fought this long fight. While I have no doubt the eligible people are probably identified, I want to ensure that the Minister knows where they live and that they will know how to apply. Some red tape is built into the legislation concerning applying to the committee, providing identification and providing paperwork to show that one was a bona fide member of the staff, and we can deal with those when we discuss the sections. However, it is important people know they are eligible for this payment. It is important the Minister uses the national airwaves and newspaper advertisements to alert people. There is only a small number – approximately 147 – so I hope she does that.

It is a good day for the people who will gain from the legislation. It is heart-warming to read of people's delight, especially that of one of the recipients, Maureen McDonnell, whom I am sure will not mind me mentioning her by name. A very nice article was written about her in the Evening Herald recently. It is interesting to note that one of the things she wants to do is to go to the Galway Races. That is apt because the Minister is from Galway. I hope she has a great day and has many wins. She might even be asked into the Fianna Fáil tent, and that would be something.

Mr. Rabbitte

She would not have much left of the £20,000 if she was.

Mrs. Owen

Given that the Fianna Fáil tent might be an endangered species as well as the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, it might be something she would like to do. I am not in a position to extend such an invitation, but I am sure the Minister, with her contacts in the Fianna Fáil part of the Government, would be able to ensure that she at least received a free glass of bubbly in the tent.

Ms Harney

I am unlikely to be there.

Mrs. Owen

It must be a great day for people like Maureen and her colleagues now that they know the quiet, dignified, diligent and careful campaign led by John Slevin and others brought this legislation to the House. They did not picket to the degree others do nor shout loudly to get their just desserts. They are the winners today and we must thank them for making us do what we should have done long ago. I take no joy in saying that Governments of all hues failed this group of people. It is wonderful that so many people who gave so much to this company and did so much for the development of the fund which was used to build hospitals throughout the country know that their jobs were worth it and that the State recognises the worth of their jobs. I congratulate the many retired or redundant workers of the company, nearly all of whom are women or widows. Perhaps other groups could take a leaf out of their book and persist until they get what they want.

Mr. Rabbitte

The legislation brings an inglorious chapter in employment practices to an end. I commend the Minister for contriving to have the legislation enacted before the House rises for the summer recess. It is an inglorious chapter in employment history. Deputy Owen traced the background through the years and it is fair to say that the people concerned were treated shabbily by their employers and, as Deputy Owen also said, neglected by successive Governments since then. Although I sponsored the cause of these workers during the current Dáil, I am ashamed to say I did not really know about them prior to this. It is an excellent tribute to Mr. John Slevin, who I understand was a one man band in advocating the cause of these workers, that his efforts have resulted in the legislation.

It is unconscionable that the promoters left the workers with nothing but statutory redundancy. Their pensions, at £2 to £3 a week, were paltry, and I am sure many workers opted for the lump sum at the time. It was described as a friendly liquidation, in so far as such a thing exists, which meant everyone else received their entitlements but not the former workers who ran the sweepstakes down the years and who were left in very difficult circumstances when employment prospects were not what they are today. We are belatedly righting a wrong.

The Minister has had a difficult few weeks. I am sure that even she would admit that she brought much of it on herself. However, she has certainly made amends by bringing forward this legislation. I always knew that, at heart, she was something of a social democrat. Should she consider crossing the floor at some stage, I will be happy to intercede with my colleagues on her behalf. The legislation is worker friendly and this, along with other personal testimonials I can give on her behalf, should be enough to do the business if matters should continue as rickety as they are between the partners in Government.

I am appalled by Deputy Owen's suggestion that the former employee of the hospitals sweepstakes ought to visit the Fianna Fáil tent at the Galway Races. The woman would have nothing left out of the £20,000.

Mrs. Owen

I was suggesting she get in free.

Mr. Rabbitte

In any event, I would have thought the PD tent ought to be her first place of visitation.

Mrs. Owen

They do not have one, they have a telephone box.

Mr. Rabbitte

I know the PD tent is a bit leaky at the moment, but one never knows. Things may improve when the fine weather comes and the beaches of Kerry beckon.

I am amused by the attempt by the ever loyal and creative Civil Service to explain why this is not a precedent. I am not at all persuaded by the arguments advanced, nor am I greatly concerned about it, nor, in my opinion, ought the Tánaiste be. It creates a precedent. However, it is a compassionate precedent that I do not think we ought make apologies for. I recall a particular car company in Bluebell or Ballyfermot—

Mrs. Owen

It was Santry.

Mr. Rabbitte

What was the company called? I am quite sure if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle were free to advise me he would remember it.

Ms Harney

It was Talbot.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Talbot workers.

Ms Harney

I should not be helping the Deputy but I will in the spirit of co-operation.

Mr. Rabbitte

Let us put the memory of the Talbot workers on the record of the House. In that situation, a number of workers were retained on the public purse, although they were employed by a private company, for a very long time as a result of a decision of the Tánaiste's old nemesis, Mr. Haughey, and put in place by the ever present Mr. Ó hUiginn, who had an impressive record in implementing decisions from Talbot to Goodman to the IFSC.

Mrs. Owen

Ironically, a Garda station is there now.

Mr. Rabbitte

That precedent would have certain implications if it were to spread. However, in this case, given that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility for the legislation and the Minister for Health and Children is an indirect beneficiary through the hospital service, it seems we have no apologies to make for providing a paltry few pounds for people who dedicated their lives to what they thought was not just a job, but a worthy cause. I presume I am right in saying the former Minister, Noel Browne, the predecessor of the former Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, was assisted by this fund in the assault on tuberculosis in the 1940s and 1950s. I do not think we need be too concerned about that.

Reasons are set out which purport to distinguish these workers from other workers and to argue it is not setting a precedent. However, as I said, I am not really persuaded by that. I do not think, in any event, it is the end of the world if, in times of relatively propitious public finances, we have a case made to us in these circumstances. An ex gratia payment ought to be made in the circumstances circumscribed by the legislation to workers who were badly treated. It is only right that that should be done, and I commend the Tánaiste for doing so.

I would like to have seen a representative of the former workers on the committee. Mr. John Slevin, for example, probably knows a great deal more about the details, names and identities involved than either of the Departments might ever do. I hope that, even if the legislation does not provide for his membership of the committee, it will enlist his assistance to administer the fund being created here.

Perhaps I have missed the definition of "personal representative" in the Bill.

Mrs. Owen

It is in the Succession Act.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am sorry, it says it has the same meaning as in the Succession Act, 1965. I presume that provides for the situation where the person concerned has passed on and has direct relatives. That is fair and equitable.

I am glad to see this legislation going through the House. It remedies an injustice, albeit belatedly, and, presumably, after very many years of at least some of the people concerned finding it very difficult to make ends meet. Even at this late stage, the Bill does something to lessen the pain of the experience they had. I commend the Tánaiste for bringing the legislation before the House.

Mrs. Barnes

This is a good day in the Dáil. I am delighted I am here to welcome this Bill and I am even more delighted that a woman Minister has introduced it. I acknowledge and congratulate the Tánaiste on expediting this and ensuring it gets through the House before the recess.

As everyone has said, this has had a long and painful history. I became very aware of it through the Single Women's Association, which was one of the core groups that became affiliated to the Council for the Status of Women. Miss Traynor was a formidable spokeswoman on behalf of the women. Many members of the Single Women's Association had worked in the sweepstakes. Due to the marriage bar and the cultural climate of the time, married women were not allowed work. Only single and widowed women, therefore, worked in the sweepstakes.

As Deputies Owen and Rabbitte said, they had a tremendous sense of motivation and commit ment to the job because they saw it on the same level as voluntary work. It was so badly paid it was almost voluntary. When they lost their jobs, which were the only jobs they had for so long, they found themselves in straitened economic circumstances, which was a terrible blow for them. They then found that the redundancy payments and-or pensions being offered them were pitiful. Miss Traynor and the Single Women's Association fought that.

I also pay tribute to Mr. John Slevin, who has consistently worked and lobbied for this, and reminded us over the years of the outstanding injustice of this and the difficult circumstances of these women. They were among the most dedicated, but also the most vulnerable and badly paid, employees in Ireland at that time. Despite this, they contributed at a high level to the upkeep of hospitals and health services when we had few other economic ways of doing so.

I do not wish to delay the House because I know there is a deadline on the Bill. I feel very good that there has been such a conclusion to this, even at this late stage. I hope the survivors will enjoy the money to the very last penny and the families of the employees, those who have passed away and those who are still living, will also share in the recognition and proceeds.

I welcome the fact that the Bill is being taken with such speed and is being supported on both sides of the House. I hope its speedy passage will be an indication, even at this late stage, to these people that their case has been recognised and that we are trying to make up for it in a better economy. I hope these people live long enough to enjoy spending the money they will receive. I also hope they recognise that the State is trying to reward them for their work and dedication. These people struggled long and hard for 30 years to have their case heard and I hope the financial reward they receive will stand as a measure of the gratitude of this House.

I thank the Tánaiste for introducing the Bill, which is one of the best items of legislation to be brought before the House.

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

I thank Members for their contributions. I also thank Fine Gael and the Labour Party for facilitating the speedy passage of the legislation through the House this afternoon. This shows that an enormous amount can be achieved when we work together in the interests of the people we represent. Notwithstanding the fact that this matter has been awaiting a resolution for 13 years, I believe politics can work for the benefit of ordinary people.

Today has been interesting. This morning Deputy Joe Higgins invited me to attend a rally on Saturday and now Deputy Rabbitte has invited me to join the Labour Party. That proves that a week is a long time in politics because earlier in the week there were calls for my resignation.

Mrs. Owen

The Tánaiste is also welcome to join Fine Gael.

Ms Harney

I will not comment on that. I congratulate Deputy Owen on her promotion. I am not sure what she is going to be doing but I understand she will be in charge of everyone else in her party. Regardless of the description of the position to which she has been promoted, I wish the Deputy well.

Mr. Rabbitte

She will be the party's enforcer.

Mrs. Barnes

She is well qualified for the job.

Mrs. Owen

I will have to take lessons from the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Séamus Brennan.

Ms Harney

Given the size of the new Fine Gael front bench, I am concerned that Deputy Owen might be tempted to advocate a constitutional referendum to extend the size of the Cabinet.

The definition of the term "personal representative" used in the Bill is taken from the Succession Act, 1965, and it means the executor or the administrator, for the time being, of a deceased person, a spouse, a child, a sister, a brother, a niece, a nephew, a friend or an agreed person. In the case of a former worker who is incapacitated and unable to look after his or her affairs, the cheque will be made available to the person concerned and can be lodged to his or her account. People who are incapacitated always have a carer looking after their affairs in this situation. In my opinion, the Bill covers the various people about whom Members inquired. Initially, I had considered using the word "child" but seeking and identifying former employees' children would have been very difficult. Therefore, the term "personal representative" is more appropriate.

The committee will work closely with John Slevin who was crucially involved in the drafting of the legislation. In fact, earlier this afternoon he assisted my officials in drafting an amendment I intend to table on Committee Stage because we have discovered that one former employee who left the Hospitals' Trust in November 1986 would not have been covered and I have no desire to see anyone lose out. I reiterate what I said earlier, namely, that this Bill would not have been introduced without the efforts of John Slevin. He is an outstanding representative, he is reasonable and he carried out an effective campaign in respect of this issue.

In the event of their being any misunderstanding I must state that the entire Government supports this legislation. The Taoiseach, his programme manager and many others took a personal interest in this matter. Everyone who has been in Government knows that on occasion it can be difficult to take on board people's concerns and enshrine them in legislation.

A number of references were made to precedent. When one tries to introduce legislation of this nature, people always tend to refer to precedent. It is clear that the State would not be expected to introduce a Bill of this sort in respect of a private company. If this was a foreign company, a great deal of criticism would have been forthcoming about the way matters were handled. In view of the circumstances, it is right that the State should make the contribution outlined in the Bill. One would hope that in the future, in light of public-private partnerships and the contracting out of many State activities, arrangements must be made in legislation to ensure risk and liability will be passed on to private contractors and that taxpayers will not be obliged to foot the bill.

Whether the former employees of the Hospitals' Trust want to spend their money betting on horses at the Galway races or on some other activity, the choice rests with them. These people will not be paid enormous sums of money – although £20,000 will mean a great deal to some of them – but, as Deputy Barnes stated, the payments they receive will be a recognition on the part of the Government and the Oireachtas that they were hard done by and that we are seeking to undo a grave injustice that was done to them 13 years ago.

Question put and agreed to.