Vol. 472 No. 3
14 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if the Government plans to provide matching funding, separate from redundancy payments, for the readaption aid to be allocated for former Irish Steel workers; and if he intends to make applications under other programmes for funding to assist former Irish Steel workers. [23186/96]
As I indicated to the House last week, in response to a question from Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, considerable progress was made in relation to the application by my Department to the European Commission for readaptation aid for former Irish Steel workers made redundant due to the restructuring plan in 1994.
I am now pleased to inform the House that a significant improvement on the readaptation aid package, originally approved by the Commission in December 1995, has been secured and formal European Commission approval was received late last week. This new package represents a significant improvement in terms of the number of eligible workers, the amount of aid available and the payment conditions. Readaptation aid will now be available for 209 former workers, made redundant in 1994, 1995 and early 1996. The total funding available from the Commission will be 627,000 ECUs and this figure incorporates the 376,806 ECUs approved by the Commission in December 1995. Readaptation aid of 627,000 ECUs will result in payments of 3,000 ECUs per worker. I understand that the Commission will make the funding available to my Department within two to three months and the Deputy may rest assured that payments will be made by my Department to the eligible workers as quickly as possible on receipt of the readaptation aid from Brussels.
The Deputy refers to the provision of matching funding from the Government. As I previously indicated, the provision of additional matching funding does not arise in relation to the readaptation aid of 627,000 ECUs approved by the EU Commission for the Irish Steel workers made redundant in 1994, 1995 and early 1996. The extra statutory redundancy payments received by the workers constitutes the matching funding, and this has been accepted by the Commission. In 1985, the previous occasion readaptation aid was paid to former Irish Steel workers, the extra statutory redundancy payments received by them also constituted the matching funding.
As regards the Deputy's point about making further applications under other programmes for funding to assist the former Irish Steel workers, I am not aware of any other specific aid which might be available from the EU for the former Irish Steel workers. In any event, I understand that the average maximum aid available under Article 56.2(b) of the ECSC Treaty for workers made redundant is 3,000 ECUs per worker and, as I have mentioned above, this maximum amount has been secured for the former Irish Steel workers.
The redundant workers do not accept that the matching funding was provided by the Government through increased redundancy payments. I do not accept it either because it seems to be a breach of normal European relationships with regard to these matters. There is now a large body of dissatisfied people, ex-workers of Irish Steel, who feel the State has let them down. Irrespective of the increased payments, they are looking for the matching funding which is a feature of such funding. Will the Minister meet the workers, as the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, did in the summer, and pursue the case with greater vigour?
I am sorry the Deputy takes that view. The 1985 precedent is clear on the status of matching funds. The redundancy payments of £4.3 million in respect of 209 people who were made redundant were accepted as matching funds in 1985. That was the approach taken by Government in 1985 and the approach taken on this occasion by the Commission.
There are significant improvements, a number of which have been missed by Deputies. For example, on previous occasions aid was paid on a quarterly basis over an 18-month period which resulted in a very long phase. On this occasion it will be paid as a lump sum. Also, the Commission's view was that the payment should be confined to 2,000 ECUs per worker, but we successfully negotiated an agreement to pay up to the maximum of 3,000 ECUs per worker.
Neither the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, who was in the Department in 1985, nor his brother, the Minister, are seen as friends of the ex-workers of Irish Steel. The workers have informed me that when the redundancy payments were being negotiated there was no question that they would be taken as part and parcel of the matching funds. These ex-workers would not be going on parade Saturday next to protest at how they have been treated if that was the case. It appears that the Minister has taken an arbitrary decision based on an agreement made in 1985 which was not part and parcel of this new arrangement. In these circumstances does the Minister not feel that there is an onus on him to match the EU funding?
I roundly reject the Deputy's suggestion that I and the Government have not been friends of Irish Steel. We put a huge effort into pursuing a successful future for the Irish Steel plant, which we have successfully done. We have vigorously pursued this issue and again successfully negotiated an increase in the readaptation aid from 2,000 ECUs to 3,000 ECUs per worker. My decision in regard to this was not an arbitrary one. It is the accepted approach of the European Commission. The precedent is clear.
I did not hear the Minister's reply. The workers understood that the extra statutory payments did not constitute the matching funds. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? Will he ask his colleague if Senator Sherlock reflects the true feeling of Democratic Left when he said it is a crying shame that matching funds were not provided by the Government? He is a member of a party that is not only in Government but represented in that Department. Will the Minister comment? The Labour Party is also part of the Government, and it has been conspicuous by its silence over the past week, particularly in Cobh and east Cork. It is time they stood up and were counted. After making very wide-ranging statements, they have suddenly gone back into their shells.
I assure the Deputy that there have been numerous contacts between my Department and representatives of the workers over the period. It has always been clear that the approach was on the basis of the 1985 approach, that matching funding both then and now was on the basis of the redundancy payments at the time.
Certainly not on this occasion.
That is the position and the basis on which we secured very successfully in these negotiations an increase in the sums available from the EU from an original proposal of 2,000 ECU to 3,000 ECU.
The Minister is short-changing these redundant workers in that the Government is not providing the additional funding required to match the EU funding. Because it is such a small amount it is a miserable way to conclude this difficult episode concerning the sale of Irish Steel, the legislation and the workers. On behalf of the redundant workers in Irish Steel I ask the Minister to go the last half mile of the road with them and secure from the Government, in this time of plenty, the matching funding which they require?
I regret to confirm that the position, as I outlined, is that the precedent was clear in 1985. The approach we have taken has been consistent with that of 1985. That confirms the EU approach which is——
Surely the Minister will not tie himself down to the precedents.
——that the matching funds were the redundancy payments paid.
This is an enlightened Government.
The terms on which we have secured this payment are a significant improvement on what was available in 1985, in terms of timing, and the amounts being paid are the maximum permissible under Article 56 of the Treaty.
